MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  93-81290 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  1 7,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  Is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  Is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  Institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if.  In  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  Involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


JARVIS,  SAMUEL  FARMAR 


TITLE: 


REPLY  TO  DOCTOR 

MILNER'S... 

PLACE: 

NEW  YORK 

DA  TE : 

1847 


>»«l 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOHR  APHIC  MirROFORM  TARHFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


d}f^    cfarvis,  Rev.  Sami/el  Farmar.  I786-/85I. 
^^^^  T?eply   j-o  Docfor  MilWs/'Enci  of 

r|li|ious  cojntrovfersy';  so_  faras -}-h&  cHurcfies 
OT  rhe  trip'lisn  covVimunion  are  concerned... 
fix  1847.  0.  SlSlp. 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


FILM     SIZE:____3_5 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


REDUCTION     RATIO: _/J^ 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA 

DATE     FILMED: M.l^^_^^ x..x.x^l.^       ijr7iH 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONq,  INC  WOODRRrnnF^¥ 


^  IB     IIB 
H INITIALS 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100. 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12         3        4         5 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiihiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii 


MM 


TTT 


Inches 


TTT 


WW 


1 


6 


7        8        9 


m 


10 

A 


I       I   I  T 


11 

ilJ 


12       13       14       15    mm 


T 


Jmjlmjhmlmj^^ 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


ISA    Hill  3.2 

163 


2.5 


I  71 


^     u 


3.6 

4.0 


1.4 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


M 


MfiNUFfiCTURED   TO   flllM   STfiNDfiRDS 
BY   RPPLIED   IMRGE,     INC. 


<    *'i;i,  ■■,..;l,  i:iM  li-.  ;!:iiat1 


1 

!.-  =  ■   ,;f,jni 


ifl''.',!     ■.inUl^-i^l-i.-^li:;!-.]] 


■»ijl'r   -'i-M 


IkBug 


a;::st:'';i!:yH.^^i-^f 


^ 


tlliiliiiiil  :ii 


|i!!l 


;•■'■:  iRH";ii 


if 


»| 


II 


.|-»»ti;*.«jjT|«5; 


SB6 


mil 


(S^olnmbiii  ©oUegc 
i»t  tlje  (City  0t'  %lg%v  UorU, 


GIVEN    BY 


JUY,  n^TwsI  "LyvsA 


^t 


%. 


I 


■      • 


»   •.    .*   •••   • 


01        •»         »•»»»»!  » 


(4 


>  1  • . . .    «  •  •  •    •  •    •  :>»    •  • 

DOCTOR   MIL.N;EP'S 

END  or  RELIGIOUS  CONTUOYERSY," 


SO  FAR  AS 


THE  CHURCHES  OF  THE  ENGLISH  COMMUNION 


ARE   CONCERNED. 


BY 


SAMUEL  FARMAR  JARVIS,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

•  •  • 

HISTORIOGRAPHER   OF   THE   CHURCH, 
AUTHOR   OF  "  A    CHRONOLOGICAL   INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   HISTORY   OF 

THE   CHURCH,"   ETC.,  ETC. 


i^k 


"  Ego  qaando  cuique  vel  dicendo  vel  scribendo  respondeo,  etiam  contumeUosb 
criminationibas  lacessitus,  quantum  mihi  Dominus  donat,  franatis  aWue  contritis  vans 
indignaUonis  aculeis,  auditori  lectorive  consulens,  non  ago  ut  efficiar  homini  conviciando 

superior,  sed  errorem  convincendo  salubrior." 

S.  Auo.  cont.  Liu.  Petiliani,  ho.  lu. 


NEW- YORK: 

D.  APPLETON  &  COMPANY,  200  BROADWAY. 

PHILADELPHIA  I 
GEO.  S.  APPLETON,  148  CHESNUT-ST. 

MDCCCXLVII. 


•     •••••♦•••  • 

«•    «•••,!••  •  • 

•  ••••••'•••  •  • 

•  ••••    »•"••  •  % 


« 


•  •  •  • 


4     •  *^*  •♦         ••      •»•  •••        •     •  * 

•   •      •  •    '     ' 


^         •    •    • 
»   •     •     • 

•  •• 


•        •   » 


,•    •      • 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tHfe  year  1847, 
By  SAMUEL  FARMAR  JARVIS, 
In  the  Clerk's  OflSce  of  the  District  Court  for  the  State  of  Connecticut. 


CO 

to 


i 

5 


8 


CM 


A  ROLAND  FOR  DR.  MILNER'S  OLIVER. 

(See  the  quotations  on  the  reverse  of  his  THUe-page  from  the  same  Authors.) 

"  They  dare  even  to  rebaptize  CathoHcs,  whereby  they  more  amply  confirm  the  fact 
that  they  themselves  are  heretics  ;  since  it  hath  seemed  good  to  the  whole  Church  Cath- 
olic not  to  rescind  the  common  baptism  even  in  heretics  themselves."— St.  Austin,  Doc- 
tor of  the  Church,  a.  d.  400.    Lib.  de  H(Bresibus,  LXIX. 

"  The  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  that  which  he  has  who  is  baptized ;  and  the  Sacra- 
ment of  conferring  Baptism  is  that  which  he  has  who  is  ordained.  But  as  the  baptized 
person,  if  he  shall  recede  from  the  unity,  does  not  lose  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  ;  so 
also  the  ordained  person,  if  he  shall  recede  from  the  unity,  does  not  lose  the  Sacrament 
of  conferring  baptism."— St.  Auoustink,  Doctor  of  the  Church,  a.  d.  400.  Omt. 
Donatistas.  Lib.  I.  c.  i. 

"  1.  If  any  Papist  living,  or  all  the  Papists  Hving,  can  prove  unto  me  that  the  present 
Roman  Church,  is  eyther  the  Catholique  Church,  or  a  sound  member  of  the  CathoHque 
Church,  I  w  ill  subscribe.  2.  If  any  Papist  living,  or  all  the  Papists  living,  can  prove 
unto  me  that  the  present  Church  of  England  is  not  a  true  member  of  the  Catholique 
Church,  I  will  subscribe.  3.  If  any  Papist,  &c.,  can  prove  unto  mee,  that  all  those  points, 
or  any  one  of  those  points  which  the  Church  of  Rome  maintaineth  against  the  Church 
of  England,  were  or  was,  the  perpetuall  Doctrine  of  the  Catholique  Church  :  the  con- 
cluded Doctrine  of  the  representative  Church  in  any  generall  Councell,  or  Nationall  ap- 
proved by  a  Generall :  or  the  dogmaticall  resolution  of  any  one  Father,  for  500  yeares 
after  Christ,  I  will  subscribe.— Dr.  Montague,  Bishop  of  Norwich.  Oagger  Gagged. 
To  the  Reader. 

*'  Since  the  time  that  I  could  understand  the  Dispute  about  Religion,  when  it  was  de- 
manded, on  the  behalf  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Where  was  your  church  before  Luther's 
time  1  The  Answer  hath  always  been  :  Even  where  it  is  now.  The  answer  was  :  That 
it  is  the  same  church  that  it  was  ;  a  church  which  was  sick,  and  is  now  cured  ;  which 
was  corrupted,  and  is  now  cleared  of  her  corruptions."- Dr.  Herbert  Thorndike, 
Prebendary  of  Westminster.    Just  Weights  and  Measures.  P.  I. 

"  It  was  the  challenge  of  St.  Augustine  to  the  Donatists,  who  (as  the  Church  of 
Rome  does  at  this  day)  inclos'd  the  Catholick  Church  within  their  own  circuits :  Ye  say 
that  Christ  is  heir  of  no  Lands  but  where  Donatus  is  Coheire.  Read  this  to  us  out  of 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  out  of  the  Psalms,  out  of  the  Gospel  itself,  or  out  of  the 
Letters  of  the  Apostles.  Read  it  thence  and  we  believe  it.  Plainly  directing^s  to  the 
Fountains  of  our  Faith,  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  the  words  of  Christ,  and  the 
words  of  the  Apostles.  For  nothing  else  can  be  the  foundation  of  our  Faith,  whatsoever 
came  in  after  these  f oris  est,  it  belongs  not  unto  Christ.— Dr.  Jeremy  Taylor,  Bishop 
Down.    Dissu^isive  from  Popery,    Chap.  ],  Sect.  1. 


aJiW 


f 


I 


•       I 


•  • » • 

>    « 


•• 


o  >  o 

•  3 


•      •  •    ^ 


•    •  •       •  • 


t»«»»     »•• 


•  •   »       • 

,    .,    •  • 


«  «  3 


c-onDeNts."  '  ■ 


PART  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

What  the  End  of  religious  controversy  means.— The  address  to  Dr. 
Burgess  then  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  and  afterwards  of  Sahsbury,  and 
the  charges  it  contains  noticed.— Importance  still  attached  to  Dr. 
Milner'sbook  a  reason  for  again  answering  it.— Frontispiece.— Title. 
—Dr.  Milner's  Religious  Society  of  Protestants  fictitious.      .        13 

CHAP.  I.— The  Rule  of  Faith. 

Dr.  Milner's  first  five  letters  occupied  in  the  arrangement  of  prclimina- 
ries.- The  sixth  and  seventh  on  the  first  and  second  false  rules  ot 
faith,  considered.— The  second  false  rule  ascribed  to  the  Church  ot 
England.— Question  concerning  the  term  Catholic— The  Duke  ot 
Brunswick  and  Lunenburgh  used  these  two  false  rules.— Right  ot  pn- 
vate  judgment  and  its  bounds,  in  ihe  English  Communion.— 1  he 
true  questions  at  issue. 

CHAP.  IL— Tradition. 

Artifice  of  Dr.  Milner  in  the  use  of  this  term.— Its  true  definition.-- 
Cardinal  Bellarmine's  admissions.— Bp.  Marsh's  summary  ot  his 
language.— Meaning  of  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  and  2  Thes.  li.  15,  and  iii.  6.-- 
Difference  betweeh  the  Roman  and  English  Communions.— Council 
of  Trent.— Session  of  1546.— Synods  of  London  in  1552  and  15b-S. 
—Articles  VI.  and  XXXIV.-CouncU  of  Trent  professing  an  equal 
veneration  for  Scripture  and  Tradition,  makes  the-latter  superior, 
and  Dr.  Milner  limits  it  to  Tradition  as  received  and  explained  at 
Rome.— Reflections  on  this  assumption -«*> 

CHAP.  III.— The  Bible. 

Fallacy  of  Dr.  Milner's  assertion  against  learning  our  religion  from  a 
book  —Design  of  the  English  Reformers  for  the  daily  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  to  the  people.— The  church  hath  authority  in  controversies 
of  faith.— The  prayer-book  set  forth,  as  the  Catholic  sense  of  the 


6 


CONTENTS. 


Scriptures-^Efeng^rfiJ  a'tijiing  froij^  > he  private  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures*  caiirio.t:  juitiy',apply.  io  ,  the  "English  Reformation — Dr. 
Milner's  Letter  IX.  endeavours  to  dispairage  the  Bible  by  a  series  of 
questions. — J^heisef  questions  arfswered  under  the  following  sections :  39 
Sec.  I.  The  Cc^nbii.'  The  a^re^rnent  and  disagreement  of  the  Roman 
and  English  Communions  stated.— In  the  Old  Testament  the  English 
Communioii  re;ceiveb  thc^HcbrevyCp.non  ;  the  Roman,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Ga<ioi;i.rr-The:i^'3t,Wrned  Fathers,  Origen  and  St.  Jerome, 
agree  with  the  English.— History  ot  the  Greek  version. — The 
apocryphal  books  added  in  Egypt. — Testimony  of  Josephus. — Dr.  Mil- 
ner's quotations  from  Hooker  and  Chillingworth  considered. — History 
of  the  Latin  Translation. — Difference  of  the  old  Vulgate  and  the  new 
Vulgate.— The  old  Vulgate  favoured  by  St.  Augustine. — The  Council 
of  Trent  has  followed  him,  and  a  decretal  of  Innocent  I.,  in  opposition 
to  St.  Jerome  and  Damasus,  the  third  pope  before  Innocent.  44 

Sec.  II.  Ths  Accuracy  of  the  Text.  The  question  raised  by  Dr.  Milner 
concerning  the  Fourteenth  Psalm,  and  1  John  v.  7,  8,  considered.  52 
Sec.  III.  The  Fidelity,  of  the  English  Translation.  The  fallibility  of  all 
translations. — Impiety  of  assuming  the  infallibility  of  uninspired 
compositions. — Discordant  editions  of  Sixtus  V.  and  Clement  VIIJ. 
— Excellence  of  the  authorized  English  version. — 1  Cor.  xi.  27,  and 
St.  Matt.  xix.  11.     Summary  from  Dr.  Grier  as  to  the  real  value  of 

the  English  Bible G5 

Sec.  IV.  The  true  sense  of  Scripture.  Bishop  Walton  quoted  by 
Dr.  Milner, — His  quotation  connected  with  the  context. — Agrees 
with  Chillingworth,  Bishop  Bull,  and  Hooker.— The  voice  of  the 
church  is  the  reason  and  learning  of  the  whole  church. — A  servile  ad- 
herence to  the  Latin  version,  and  its  interpretation  since  the  fifth 
century,  the  source  of  our  differences. — Blind  submission  to  author- 
ity, one  system  :  enlightened  and  deferential  submission  the  other.   71 

CHAP.  IV. — Dr.  Milner's  Quotations. 

These  occupy  his  10th,  11th,  and  12th  letters.— Blackstone  on  the  Lex 
non  scripta  shown  to  be  in  accordance  with  our  XXth  and  XXXIVth 
Articles. — His  quotations  from  writers  of  the  first  five  centuries,  to 
show  that  Tradition  was  held  in  equal  estimation  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, examined. — SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp. — Doubts  whether 
Dr.  Milner  ever  read  them.— S.  Irenjcus.— The  passage  quoted  by 
Dr.  Milner  connected  with  the  context,  by  a  brief  summary  of  that 
Father's  argument  with  the  Valentinians,  and  thus  shown  to  be 
irrelevant.— Tertullian. — Unfairness  of  Dr.  Milner  in  selecting  and 
arranging  quotations  from  him.— Statement  of  their  connection  with 
his  argument.— Dr.  Milner's  Greek  forces,  in  which  he  is  rather  feeble. 
Origen. — SS.  Basil,  Epiphanius,  Chrysostom. — Their  true  argu- 
ments stated  by  connecting  text  with  context.— More  at  home°in 
Latin,  yet  to  save  him  from  the  charge  of  dishonesty,  we  must  be- 
lieve that  he  quoted  at  second  hand.— S.  Augustine. — Vincentius  of 
Lerins. — Dr.  Milner's  patch- work  exposed. — Four  objections  to  his 
translation — Vincentius   under    the   term  "  profectus "    anticipates 


CONTENTS. 


and  guards  against  the  fallacy  of  Mr.  Newman's  doctrine  of 
developement,  and  predicts  its  fatal  consequences. — This  being  the 
latest  author  of  the  fifth  century  quoted,  and  the  conclusion  of  Dr. 
Milner's  first  part,  the  first  part  of  the  present  reply  is  also  concluded 
by  a  statement  of  the  true  reasons  for  receiving  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, and  the  baptism  of  Infants,  and  also  the  Lenten  fast,  the  Em- 
ber days,  and  other  observances  of  the  Early  Church  Universal.      75 


PART  II. 

CHAP.  I. — The  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

Remarks  on  Dr.  Milner's  unfairness.— No  debate  between  the  Roman 

and  English  Communions  on  the   terms  of  the  ancient  creeds. Our 

object,  to  promote  Catholic  unity,  as  it  existed  before  the  great  schism 
of  a.  d.  484.— The  edict  of  Theodosius  defining  the  terms  Catholic 
and  Heretic— In  the  present  condition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  ours 
the  only  tenable  ground.  n^ 

CHAP.  II.— The  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV. 

This  creed  has  raised  the  wall  of  separation  between  us  and  the  Roman 
Communion.— The  Bull  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  requiring  under  oath  the 
profession  of  this  creed.  j^q 

CHAP.  HI. — The  Seven  Sacraments. 

Definition  of  the  words  Sacrament  and  Mystery.— Use  of  these  terms  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  the  Latin  translations,  and  by  Greek  and 
Latm  Christians —Disputes  as  to  the  number  of  the  Sacraments,  a 
war  of  words  unless  they  are  restricted  by  definition.— Quotation 
from  Bingham,  showing  that  every  sacred  rite  or  ceremony  was  an- 
ciently called  a  sacrament.— Even  relics  called  a  sacrament.— Peter 
Lombard  (a.  d.  1141)  the  first  in  the  Latin  Church  who  limited 
the  number  to  seven.— The  Greeks  admitted  this  restriction  after  his 
time,  and  before  the  Council  of  Florence  in  1439.— The  Armenians 
at  that  council— The  Copts  in  1441.— The  Maronites  and  some 
Chaldeans  in  1444— The  Nestorians,  or  Christians  of  S.  Thomas, 

maintain  the  number  but  do  not  agree  as  to  particulars. Council  of 

Trent  acted- against  the  Protestants  who  limited  the  number  to  three. 

...  124 


— Caution  of  the  English  Communion. 


CHAP.  IV. — Original  Sin  and  Justification. 

Dr.  Milner's  assertion  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  Church  of  England,  un- 
true.—Origin  of  the  English  Articles.— Doctrine  of  the   Tridentine 

Synod  on   Original  Sin,  compared  with  that  of  the  Protestants. 

Difference  on  two  points,  faith  and  concupiscence. — The  Council  of 


6 


CONTENTS. 


Scripture8#ii-Hang^rii' a'tijfinjf  frpol  \ht;' orivate  interpretation  of  the 
ScripturesVca]ino,t.'  ^ctiy '.apply,  to  .  the  , Ji:nglish  Reformation —Dr. 
Milner's  Letter  IX.  endeavours  to  disparage  the  Bible  by  a  series  of 
questions. — JJh^sd  que^tioiis  arfswered  under  the  following  sections :  39 
Sec.  I.  The  Ccinbh.'  The  agre^rnent  and  disagreement  of  the  Roman 
and  English  Communions  stated.— In  the  Old  Testament  the  English 
CommunlQi'i  rc^oejves.  the  ^Hebrew  Cp.non  ;  the  Roman,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Ga<iop.-r-The.'nj^s(, learned  Fathers,  Origen  and  St.  Jerome, 
agree  with  the  English.— History  of  the  Greek  version.— The 
apocryphal  books  added  in  Egypt.— Testimony  of  Josephus. — Dr.  Mil- 
ner's quotations  from  Hooker  and  Chillingworth  considered. — History 
of  the  Latin  Translation.— Difference  of  the  old  Vulgate  and  the  new 
Vulgate.— The  old  Vulgate  favoured  by  St.  Augustine. — The  Council 
of  Trent  has  followed  him,  and  a  decretal  of  Innocent  I.,  in  opposition 
to  St.  Jerome  and  Damasus,  the  third  pope  before  Innocent.  44 

Sec.  II.  The  Accuracy  of  the  Text.  The  question  raised  by  Dr.  Milner 
concerning  the  Fourteenth  Psalm,  and  1  John  v.  7,  8,  considered.  52 
Sec  III.  The  Fidelity,  of  the  English  Translation.  The  fallibility  of  all 
translations. — Impiety  of  assuming  the  infallibility  of  uninspired 
compositions. — Discordant  editions  of  Sixtus  V.  and  Clement  VIII. 
— Excellence  of  the  authorized  English  version. — 1  Cor.  xi.  27,  and 
St.  Matt.  xix.  11.     Summary  from  Dr.  Grier  as  to  the  real  value  of 

the  English  Bible 65 

Sec.  IV.     The  true  sense  of  Scripture.     Bishop  Walton    quoted    by 

Dr.    Milner. — His  quotation   connected  with  the  context. Agrees 

with  Chillingworth,  Bishop  Bull,  and  Hooker.— The  voice  of  the 
church  is  the  reason  and  learning  of  the  whole  church. — A  servile  ad- 
herence to  the  Latin  version,  and  its  interpretation  since  the  fifth 
century,  the  source  of  our  differences.— Blind  submission  to  author- 
ity, one  system  :  enlightened  and  deferential  submission  the  other.    7J 

CHAP.  IV.— Dr.  Milner's  Quotations. 

These  occupy  his  10th,  11th,  and  12th  letters.— Blackstone  on  the  Lex 
non  scripta  shown  to  be  in  accordance  with  our  XXth  and  XXXIVth 
Articles.— His  quotations  from  writers  of  the  first  five  centuries,  to 
show  that  Tradition  was  held  in  equal  estimation  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, examined.— SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.— Doubts  whether 
Dr.  Milner  ever  read  them.— S.  Irenaeus.— The  passage  quoted  by 
Dr.  Milner  connected  with  the  context,  by  a  brief  summary  of  that 
Father's  argument  with  the  Valentinians,  and  thus  shown  to  be 
irrelevant.— Tertullian— Unfairness 'of  Dr.  Milner  in  selecting  and 
arranging  quotations  from  him.— Statement  of  their  connection  with 
his  argument.— Dr.  Milner's  Greek  forces,  in  which  he  is  rather  feeble. 
Ongen.— SS.  Basil,  Epiphanius,  Chrysostom.— Their  true  argu- 
ments stated  by  connecting  text  with  context.— More  at  home  in 
Latin,  yet  to  save  him  from  the  charge  of  dishonesty,  we  must  be- 
lieve that  he  quoted  at  second  hand.— S.  Augustine.— Vincenti us  of 
Lerins — Dr.  Milner's  patch- work  exposed.— Four  objections  to  his 
translation — Vincentius   under    the   term  "profectus"   anticipates 


CONTENTS. 


and  guards  against  the  fallacy  of  Mr.  Newman's  doctrine  of 
developement,  and  predicts  its  fatal  consequences —This  being  the 
latest  author  of  the  fifth  century  quoted,  and  the  conclusion  of  Dr. 
Milner's  first  part,  the  first  part  of  the  present  reply  is  also  concluded 
by  a  statement  of  the  true  reasons  for  receiving  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, and  the  baptism  of  Infants,  and  also  the  Lenten  fast,  the  Em- 
ber days,  and  other  observances  of  the  Early  Church  Universal.     75 


PART  II. 

CHAP.  I. — The  OxVE  Holt  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

Remarks  on  Dr.  Milner's  unfairness.— No  debate  between  the  Roman 

and  English  Communions  on  the  terms  of  the  ancient  creeds. Our 

object,  to  promote  Catholic  unity,  as  it  existed  before  the  great  schism 
of  A.  D.  484.— The  edict  of  Theodosius  defining  the  terms  Catholic 
and  Heretic— In  the  present  condition  of  the  CathoUc  Church,  ours 
the  only  tenable  ground. 115 

CHAP.  II._Th£  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV. 

This  creed  has  raised  the  wall  of  separation  between  us  and  the  Roman 
Communion.— The  Bull  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  requiring  under  oath  the 
profession  of  this  creed.  120 

CHAP.  III. — The  Seven  Sacraments. 

Definition  of  the  words  Sacrament  and  Mystery.— Use  of  these  terms  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  the  Latin  translations,  and  by  Greek  and 
Latin  Christians. — Disputes  as  to  the  number  of  the  Sacraments,  a 
war  of  words  unless  they  are  restricted  by  definition.— Quotation 
from  Bingham,  showing  that  every  sacred  rite  or  ceremony  was  an- 
ciently called  a  sacrament. — Even  relics  called  a  sacrament. — Peter 
Lombard  (a.  d.  1141)  the  first  in  the  Latin  Church  who  limited 
the  number  to  seven.— The  Greeks  admitted  this  restriction  after  his 
time,  and  before  the  Council  of  Florence  in  1439. — The  Armenians 
at  that  council.— The  Copts  in  1441.— The  Maronites  and  some 
Chaldeans  in  1444— The  Nestorians,  or  Christians  of  S.  Thomas, 

maintain  the  number  but  do  not  agree  as  to  particulars. Council  of 

Trent  acted  against  the  Protestants  who  limited  the  number  to  three. 
— Caution  of  the  English  Communion.  .  .  .  i24 

CHAP.  IV. — Original  Sin  and  Justification. 

Dr.  Milner's  assertion  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  Church  of  England,  un- 
true.—Origin  of  the  English  Articles.— Doctrine  of  the  Tridentine 

Synod  on   Original  Sin,  compared  with  that  of  the  Protestants. 

Difference  on  two  points,  faith  and  concupiscence. — The  Council  of 


8 


CONTENTS. 


Trent  first  separated  Regeneration  and  Baptism.— Doctrine  of  Trent 
concerning  the  Justification  of  persons  receiving  adult  baptism,  ac- 
knowledged to  be  a  new  question.— Debates  concerning  it  arranged 
under  three  heads  :  1.  The  unbelieving  adult  converted  and  justified. 
2.  The  justified  adult  continuing  in  grace.    3.  The  justified  adult 
falling  from  grace  and  recovering  it.— Question  of  free  wiU.—Under 
the  first  head,  the  dispute  with  the  Protestants  not  about  baptism,  but 
whether  faith  only,  or  good   works,  must  precede  baptism.— bmall 
number  of  Theologians  and  Fathers  present  at  the  Council.— And 
they  greatly  divided.— Doctrine  of  Peter  Lombard,  abandoned  by  the 
schools.-Retained  by  the  Protestants—Merit  of  congruity  before 
baptism,  and   merit  of  condignity   after  baptism.— Quarre     of  the 
Bishops  of  Cava  and  Chironia,  a  specimen  of  the  spirit  with  which 
the  debates  were  conducted.— Concessions  made  by  the  Council.— 
What  merit  of    congruity   means.— Proceedings   of  the  Church  ol 
England  from  1538.— Articles  agreed  upon  between  the  Protestants, 
and   the  English   archbishop  and  others,  first  published  in   1»J^-— 
Translation  of  three,  on  original  sin,  justification  and  baptism.— 1  hey 
throw  light  on  Cranmer's  sentiments,  and  on  the  Articles  and  Homilies, 
under  the  second  and  third  heads.— Debates  in  the  Council.- Opinion 
of  Fonseca.— Isidore  Clarius.- Canons  introduced  July  24t]i •— reterred 
to  Seripando.— His  views  of  a  two-fold  justification.— Whether  the 
adult,  receiving  baptism  with  repentance  and  faith,  may  be  certain 
that  he  is  in  a  state  of  grace— Affirmed  by  the  Lutherans,  demed  by 
the  Council— Predestination  and  Election.— The  first  election  condi- 
tional—We  may  depart  from  grace  given.— The  Articles  from  the 
Ninth  to  the  Eighteenth  consistent  with  the  Liturgy,  and  the  ancient 
language  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  inconsistent  with  Calvinism.— 
The  Seventeenth  Article  describes  the  justified  adult  continmng  in 
grace  ;  touches   not  the   case  of  the  heathen,  nor  the  question  be- 
tween the  Arminians  and  Gomarists.— A  comparison  of  dates  will 
show  the  true  construction  to  be  placed  on  the  proceedings  at  1  rent 
and  in  London.— Contrast  between  them.— Conclusion  of  the  chap- 
ter, in  the  words  of  Bishop  Marsh.  .... 

CHAP,  v.— The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

A  separate  question  from  Transubstantiation,  though  artfully  joined  with 
it— Definition  of  Terms.— Different  kinds  of  Sacrifice  under  the 
Law,  all  typical  of  Jesus  Christ.— The  Sin  and  Trespass  offerings 
piacular  ;  the  Peace  offerings  not  so.- These  were  voluntary,  votive 
and  Eucharistic- The  great  day  of  atonement,  the  annual  expiation 
of  sin  typical  of  the  one  great  atonement  once  offered  on  the  cross, 
and  never  to  be  repeated.— The  Passover  the  great  annual  Peace 
offering,  and  from  its  nature  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice.- The  Eucharist 
instituted  at  the  Passover,  the  Sacrifice  of  Praise  and  Thanksgiving, 
but  not  piacular.— Inconsistent  with  Transubstantiation  ;  and  this  in- 
consistency, felt  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  occasioned  all  their  de- 
bates.—Salmeron's  intrigues  to  get  a  vote  that  the  Eucharist  is  a  Pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice.— Speech  of  the  Bishop  of  Veglia  powerful  against 


CONTENTS. 


it,  but  Anally  overruled. — No  embarrassment  in  the  ancient  Church, 
because  they  held  as  the  Churches  of  the  English  communion  now 
hold,  that  it  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice  of  Praise  and  Thanksgiving.— 
The  Thirty-first  Article  expressly  limited  to  the  Sin  offering.— Arch- 
bishop Cranmer's  views  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  Catholic  be- 
lief—The idea  of  piacular  sacrifice  the  great  corruption  of  the 
Roman  mass. — It  led  to  the  priest's  receiving  without  the  people  and 
for  the  people.— The  leading  principles  of  the  EngUsh  Liturgy  as  a 
Eucharistic  sacrifice,  illustrated.— Intention  at  the  Reformation  to 
restore  the  ancient  practice  of  frequent  communion,  checked  and 
thwarted  by  contending  factions, but  never  lost  sight  of.         .         162 


CHAP.  VI. — Of  the  Real  Presence  and  Transubstantiation. 

These  confounded  by  Dr.  Milner  and  his  brethren,  because  they  were 
confounded  by  the  Council  of  Trent.— To  detect  the  sophism  the  two 
subjects  must  be  disjoined.  .....  176 

Sec.  I.  The  Heal  Presence.  The  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  two 
Paracletes. — From  the  fall  to  the  ascension,  the  Son,  and  in  Him  the 
whole  Trinity,  present  with  the  Church.— From  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  by  Him,  to  abide  with  the  Church,  and  yet  He 
and  the  Father  ever  in  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost.— Jhe  exterior  as- 
sistance of  the  Holy  Ghost.— Doctrine  of  Peter  Lombard,  already 
mentioned  chap.  iv.  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestants,  shown  to  be 
that  of  S.  Augustine,  and  the  doctrine  of  S.  Augustine  to  be  that  of 
S.  Paul  and  S.  John.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  presence  operat- 
ing continually  on  our  souls  by  the  means  which  Christ  appointed : 
the  apostolic  ministry,  the  word  and  the  sacraments. — Abp.  Cran- 
mer's view  of  the  subject  in  relation  to  the  Eucharist. — The  Holy 
Ghost  makes  the  outward  elements,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. — 
By  his  power  they  are  consecrated  for  this  purpose,  and  by  him  they 
are  applied  to  the  soul. — Bp.  Andrews  quoted  on  this  subject.— Dr. 
Milner's  unfairness. — Misrepresents  Burnet,  the  Twenty-ninth  Article 
of  1552,  and  Queen  Elizabeth.— His  remarks  on  S.  .John  chap,  vi.— 
Abp.  Cranmer  admits  its  application  to  the  Eucharist.  It  is  directly 
opposed  to  Transubstantiation.— All  Dr.  Milner's  quotations  from  the 
Fathers  prove  the  Real  presence  but  not  Transubstantiation.— His 
ignorance  or  dishonesty.— S.  Ignatius.— Origen.—S.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem.— S.  Ambrose.— All  the  doctors  of  the  Church  Cathohc  for 
five  centuries  held  the  doctrine  which  we  hold.         |  .         .  '177 

Sec.  II.  Transubstantiation.  Extract  from  Mr.  Skinner.-— Origin  of  the 
term,  and  of  the  doctrine  exclusively  Latin.— Ratramnus.—Berenga- 
rius  and  Lanfranc— Peter  the  Lombard.— Peter  of  Blois.— Pope  In- 
nocent III.  and  the  fourth  council  of  Lateran.— Occam.— The  doc- 
trine and  the  name  of  Transubstantiation  never  truly  and  property 
decreed  until  1551  in  the  Council  of  Trent.— Never  so  received  by 
the  Eastern  churches.— Confounds  the  distinct  offices  of  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost. — Abp.  Cranmer's  view.  ...  191 


10 


CONTDNTS. 


r 


CONTENTS. 


11 


CHAP.  VII. — Of  Communion  in  Both  Kinds. 

Historical  facts. — Admission  by  Cassander,  for  the  first  thousand  years. — 
The  Maiiichaeans  and  Popes  Leo  and  Gelasius. — Decree  of  Gelasius. 
— Admission  of  Cardinal  Bona  to  the  twelfth  century. — The  rejec- 
tion of  the  cup  by  the  Laity  an  effect  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation. — S.  Thomas  Aquinas  the  first  who  formally  raised  the  ques- 
tion about  communion  in  one  kind. — Wickliff  the  first  to  oppose 
this  new  practice. — His  writings  carried  into  Germany  and  Bohemia. 
— Narrative  of  .^neas  Sylvius,  afterwards  Pope  Pius  II. — Council  of 
Constance  A.  D.  1414. — Decree  taking  away  the  cup  from  the  Laity 
June  15,  1415. — Restored  to  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Laity  by 
the  Council  of  Basle  in  1437. — Proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
— Conflicting  views  of  the  Papal  and  Imperial  parties. — Suspension 
of  the  Council  ten  years. — Debates  began  June  6,  1562. — Four  Ca- 
nons passed,  and  the  rest  of  the  subject  indefinitely  postponed. — Dr. 
Milner's  treatment  of  the  subject. — His  logic. — His  criticisms  on  va- 
rious texts  of  the  New  Testament  relating  to  it.— He  admits  enough 
to  condemn  his  cause. — His  perversion  of  King  Edward's  proclama- 
tion.— Consecrated  elements  not  to  be  reserved.  .         .         198 


CHAP.  VIII. — Of  Purgatory,  and  Prayers  for  the  Dead. 

All  abuses  grow  out  of  acknowledged  truths. — True  doctrine  of  the  In- 
tei-mediate  State. — Meaning  of  Hades  and  Hell. — Dr.  Milner  assumes 
that  all  the  passages  in  Scripture  relating  to  the  middle  state  mean 
Purgatory. — His  unfairness. — False  and  loose  quotation  of  Tertuliian, 
St.  Cyprian,  and  Origen. — Remarks  on  1  Cor.  iii.  13-15. — Ancient 
Commentators. — St.    Chrysostom,   (Ecumenius,    Theophylact. — St. 
Augustine  the  first  whose  language  led  the  way  to  the  later  doctrine 
of  Purgatory. — Dr.    Phillpotis'  remarks. — Dr.    Milner's    unfairness 
and  injustice  in  accusing  Bp.  Porteus  of  falsehood. — Purgatory  and 
the  early  practice  of  prayer  for  the  dead  not  to  be  coupled. — Pro- 
gress of  the   opinion   about  Purgatory  from    St.   Augustine  to  St. 
Gregory  the  Great,  or  during  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries. — Extract 
from  the  dialogues  attributed  to  St.  Gregory. — The  notion  of  Purga- 
tory still  of  pigmy  growth. — The  Council  of  Trent  passed  the  decree 
making  it  an  article  of  faith   Dec.  4,  15G3. — Disingenuous  conceal- 
ment of  the  tnith  by  Dr.  Milner. — The  benefits  of  prayers  and  offer- 
ings for  the  dead,  in  the  Ancient  Church,  thought  to  follow  not  pre- 
cede the  Judgment. — Many  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Eng- 
lish Communion  have  approved  the  practice  of  the  Ancient  Church. 
— This  no  proof  that  they  believe  in  Purgatory. — Extract  from  Abp. 
Cranmer  against  Purgatory.— Prayers  for  the  dead  in  the  first  Prayer- 
book  of  Edward  VI. — The  subject  is  now  wisely  left  by  the  churches 
of  the  English  Communion,  to  the  private  consciences  of  their  mem- 
bers  209 


CHAP.  IX. — Of  the  Invocation  of  Saints. 

Extract  from  Mr.  Palnler. — Not  used  by  the  Eastern  Churches. — Not 
introduced  in  the  Western,  earlier  than  the  eighth  century. — One  of 
the  fruits  of  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory. — Inconsistent  with  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Intermediate  State  ;  because  it  assumes  as  its  foun- 
dation that  the  Saints  are  now  reigning  with  Christ  in  Heaven. — 
They  will  not  so  reign,  until  the  first  resurrection,  and  therefore  can- 
not properly  be  invoked. 224 

CHAP.  X. — Of  Images  and  Relics. 

Dr.  Milner  calls  them  Religious  Memorials. — He  suppresses  or  perverts 
the  truth  in  his  quotations  from  the  English  Versions  and  Heylin's 
History  of  the  Reformation  under  Queen  Elizabeth. — So  also  in 
quoting  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent. — His  treatment  of  Bishop 
Porteus. — Pictures  of  God  the  Father. — Omission  of  the  Second 
Commandment. — Relics  began  to  collected  about  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century. — False  relics  even  in  the  days  of  St.  Augustine. — 
Sale  of  them  from  that  time  to  this. — Decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
making  relics  means  of  obtaining  blessings  from  God. — Dr.  Phillpott^ 
Remarks. — True  miracles  of  the  Apostolic  age  brought  into  doubt  by 
these  false  miracles. — Charge  of  Idolatry. — Extracts  from  Bp. 
Montague  whom   Dr.    Milner  quotes    as  indulgent   to  the  prac- 

llC6«  •••••••••  ^w  I 

CHAP.  XI. — Of  the  Power  of  Indulgences. 

Eaily  discipline  of  the  Church. — The  mitigation  of  it  in  particular  cases 
by  the  Bishop  called  an  Indulgence. — St.  Ambrose  cited. — As  one 
baptism'so  one  public  penance. — Homily  quoted  from  Bingham  proves 
that  Indulgences  were  not  applied  to  the  future  state. — Commutation 
of  penance  in  this  life,  by  bodily  austerities  or  money,  not  traced 
higher  than  to  the  end  of  the  seventh  century. — St.  Peter  Damian  in 
in  the  eleventh  century. — Sale  of  Indulgences  begun  from  1087  to 
1095. — Urban  II.  and  the  Council  of  Clermont. — Alexander  of 
Hales  in  the  thirteenth  century  first  spoke  of  the  treasure  of  merits 
of  supererogation  in  the  Church  applied  by  the  Pope  as  a  satisfaction 
for  sins. — Pope  Clement  VI.  to  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
— The  value  of  Father  Morin's  testimony  in  his  great  work  on 
penance.  .........  232 

CHAP.  XII. — Of  the  Roman  Supremacy. 

Involves  the  whole  Constitutional  History  of  the  Church. — Apostles  in- 
fluenced by  the  political  divisions  of  the  Empire. — Shown  from  the 
Acts  and  Revelations. — Angels  of  the  Churches. — Apostolic  See. — 
Provincial  Synods  twice  a  year. — Appeal  to  churches  founded  by 
Apostles. — Tertuliian. — S.  Cyprian. — Primacy  of  St.  Peter  a  per- 
sonal honour,  and  a  type  of  unity. — Every  first  see  a  See  of  St.  Pe- 


12 


CONTENTS. 


Its 


ter. — Changes  in  the  Empire  by  Constantine. — Praefecti-Praetorio. — 
Praefectus  Urbis  and  his  jurisdiction. — Suburbicarian  region. — Dioces- 
es of  the  Empire. — Vicarius,  Exarch,  Comes  or  Count. — Archbishop 
so  called  first  in  Egypt. — Appeal  of  Alexandria  to  the  Council  of 
Nice. — Decision  of  the  Council. — Canons  IV.  and  VI. — Ruffinus 
quoted  for  the  construction  put  on  the  latter  in  Rome. — Suburbica- 
rian churches  what  ? — Constantinople  founded. — Eclipses  Rome. — 
Second  general  Council  gives  it  rank  next  to  Rome. — Council  of 
Chalcedon. — Title  of  Patriarch  first  used  oflScially,  preparatory  to 
that  Council. — Equal  in  dignity  to  Vicarius  or  Exarch. — Justinian 
and  the  title  of  (Ecumenical  Patriarch.— Assumed  by  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople. — Letter  of  St.  Gregory. — His  successor  Boniface  III. 
solicits  and  obtains  the  title.— The  prophetic  period  of  1260 
years. 236 

CHAP.  XHI. — Of  Religious  Persecution. 

origin. — Union  of  the  Temporal  with  Ecclesiastical  power. — Dr. 
Milner's  perversion  of  the  truth. — John  Huss  given  over  to  the  Secu- 
lar arm.— Meaning  of  this  phrase  elucidated  by  the  Canons  of  the 
third  and  fourth  Lateran  Councils. — Excommunication  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  by  Pope  Pius  V. — Sir  Francis  Walsingham's  Letter  to  M. 
Critoy,  on  the  Queen's  wisdom  and  moderation. — The  Jesuits  hung 
for  treason — Death  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  &c.,  not  justified. — All 
cruelty  from  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  plenitude  of  Papal  power. — 
The  Ancient  Church  guiltless. — Language  of  Athanasius,  with  which 
the  reply  concludes.  .        .        .        .        ...        p:  247 


PART    I. 


INTRODUCTION. 


"  The  end  of  religious  controversy"  may  mean  its  object 
or  its  termination.  Its  object  should  be  Truth,  but  is  often 
victory — to  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason.  Its 
termination  can  never  be  until  Truth  has  triumphed.  This 
is  a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished  by  every  pious 
mind,  but  hardly  to  be  expected  in  the  present  state  of  error, 
confusion  and  sin.  Names  are  mighty  things ;  and  the  dex- 
terous use  of  them  often  gives  to  falsehood  the  semblance  of 
truth,  and  to  truth  the  appearance  of  falsehood.  No  candid 
and  honest  mind  will  knowingly  receive  falsehood,  or  reject 
truth  ;  but  there  are  motives  of  various  kinds  which  operate 
on  our  passions,  and  discolour,  obscure,  or  disturb  our  men- 
tal vision.  How  far  these  remarks  are  applicable  to  Dr. 
Milner's  End  of  Religious  Controversy,  it  shall  be  the  object 
of  the  following  pages  to  determine. 

In  the  Philadelphia  edition  of  1820,  a  copy  of  which  I 
have  before  mc,  an  *'  Address  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  "  is  prefixed,  which  seems  to  have  been  intended  as 
a  general  preface ;  partly  to  account  for  the  publication  in 
1818  of  a  correspondence  "written  in  the  latter  part  of  1801 
and  the  first  months  of  1802,"  and  partly  to  comment  on  a 
publication  by  Dr.  Burgess,  entitled  "The  Protestant's  Cate- 
chism." In  tliis  address,  assuming,  as  all  the  writers  on  his 
side  do,  that  the  Roman  Communion  is  exclusively  the  Catholic 
Church,  he  complains  of  "  the  increased  and  increasing 
virulence  of  the  press  against  Catholics,"  and  charges  some 
of  the  Bishop's  *'  colleagues  "  as  accusing  them  of  idolatry, 
blasphemy  and  sacriki^e,  of  being  enemies  of  all  law,  human 

3 


14 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


and  divine,  and  of  holding  a  xeWgion  Jit  only  for  persons  weak 
in  body  and  in  mind,  and  calculated  for  the  meridian  of  hell  * 
He  charges  the  Bishop  himself  as  holding  paradoxical  opin- 
ions, as  violating  truth  and  consistency,  and  so  inclined  to 
persecute  that  '*  he  loould  have  the  whole  code  of  penal  laws 
with  all  their  incapacities,  fines,  imprisonments,  hanging,  draw- 
ing and  quartering,  re-enacted. ^'"f 

These  charges  against  Dr.  Burgess  and  other  Bishops, 
whom  he  does  not  name,  were  indignantly  denied,  at  the  time 
in  which  they  were  made,  by  Dr.  Grier ;:}:  and  their  very 
enormity,  unsupported  as  they  are  by  any  quotations,  blunts 
their  point,  and  weakens  their  force.  But  supposing  them 
true,  how  easy  would  it  be  to  recriminate,  if  recrimination 
could  do  any  thing  but  increase  the  evil  !  To  mention  no 
other  of  Dr.  Milner's  compeers,  than  Dr.  Walmesley,  who 
assumed  the  name  of  Pastorini,  let  me  ask  if  the  Exposi- 
tion of  the  Apocalypse  by  that  writer,  in  which  he  makes  the 
locusts  from  the  bottomless  pit  with  their  scorpion  sliiigs^  to 
mean  the  Protestants,  hacl  any  of  that  ^^?nild  and  enlightened 
character  '*  which  Dr.  Milner  ascribes  to  "  the  Author  of 
that  most  ingenious  and  learned  Commentary." || 

But  Dr.  Milner,  and  the  men  of  that  age  have  gone  to 
their  last  account,  and  are  beyond  the  reach  of  our  censure, 
whether  for  praise  or  blame.  If  courtcousness,  candour 
and  moderation,  fair  argument,  the  honest  quotation  of  au- 
thorities, and  whatever  else  may  constitute  the  virtues  of  a 
champion  for  religious  truth,  have  on  either  side  been  violat- 
ed ;  if  rudeness,  artifice,  virulence,  sophistry,  perversion  and 
falsehood  have  marked  the  character  of  any  of  the  combat- 
ants ;  let  us  remember  that  He  who  "  searcheth  the  hearts 
and  trieth  the  reins,"  allows  of  no  appeal  from  the  severity 
of  His  justice,  and  will  condemn  us  the  more  if  we  judge 
them  with  severity  and  yet  imitate  their  example  ! 

Not  the  person  of  Dr.  Milner,  but  his  work  is  that  with 
which  we  have  to  do  ;  nor  would  it  be  thought  necessary  to 
revive  a  controversy  which  has  now  been  slumbering  for 


*  Address,  p.  xiv.  t  Address,  p.  xviii. 

X  See  Grier's  Reply,  prefatory  remarks,  pp.  iii.,  xxx-i.,  and  Defence, 
Introductory  Chapter,  p.  3. 
fj  Rev.  ix.  2-11. 
II  Milner's  Inquiry,  p.  83,  qudted  by  Grier,  Defence,  pp.  3-6. 


INTRODUCTION. 


15 


more  than  twenty  years,  if  it  had  not  been  that  his  work  is 
still  circulated  with  untiring  industry,  as  being  in  itself  un- 
answerable. That  it  was  so  considered  by  eminent  persons 
of  his  communion,  when  it  was  first  published,  is  certain.  The 
late  Charles  Butler,  the  antagonist  of  Dr.  Southey,  called  it 
"  the  ablest  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  on  the  Articles  contested  with  her  by  Protestants;  and 
the  ablest  statement  of  the  proofs  by  which  they  are  supported, 
and  of  the  historical  facts  with  which  they  are  connected,  that 
has  appeared  in  our  language."*  But  why  should  no  notice 
be  now  taken  of  Dr.  Grier's  Reply  ?  or  of  Dr.  Phillpott's  ani- 
madversions in  his  letters  to  Mr.  Butler  ?  to  say  nothing  of  the 
other  able  publications  by  which  Dr.  Milner's  book  was  an- 
swered when  it  first  appeared  ?  There  can  be  no  End  of 
Controversy,  if  books,  which  have  been  answered  over  and 
over  again,  are  re-published  and  constantly  circulated,  with- 
out the  least  notice  being  taken  of  all  that  has  been  said  on 
the  opposite  side.  The  state  of  the  question  has  very  much 
changed  since  Dr.  Milner  wrote.  Twenty  years  ago  it  was 
as  much  a  political  as  a  religious  controversy.  "  Catholic 
Emancipation,"  as  it  was  called,  was  then  the  war-cry.  In 
that  respect  the  victory  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  has  been 
gained.  In  America,  with  it  is  believed  but  one  or  two 
exceptionsjf  no  political  incapacities  have  ever  been  created, 
since  the  United  States  became  a  nation.  Why  then  circu- 
late a  book,  now  and  here,  which  has  constant  reference  to  a 
state  of  things  no  longer  existing  ?  As  far  as  doctrines,  and 
proofs,  and  historical  facts  are  concerned,  we  are  willing  to 
meet  this  "  ablest  of  all  expositions  and  statements."  But, 
with  regard  to  the  political  struggle,  it  is  not  the  Roman 
Communion,  but  the  united  Church  of  England  and  Ireland, 
with  her  children,  which  is  now  in  bondage.  The  English 
communion  has  never  received  an  equivalent  for  the  repeal 
of  the  test-acts.  The  connection  of  the  Church  with  the 
State  subjects  her  to  parliamentary  enactments,  in  which 
her  adversaries  have  now  a  most  powerful  voice.  She  is 
deprived  of  her  Constitutional  Synods ;  and  her  Bishops  are 
nominated  often  by  ungodly  statesmen,  who  think  more  of 

*  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  p.  10,  as  cited  by  the  present 
Bishop  of  Exeter  in  his  Letters  on  that  work.   2d  ed.  Lond.  1826.  p.  18. 
t  I  allude  to  New  Hampshire. 


16 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


supporting  their  political  party  than  of  adding  lustre  to  her 
piety,  orthodoxy  or  learning.  She  cannot  obtain  from  par- 
liament grants  of  money  for  the  education  of  her  poor,  for 
'the  erection  of  her  churches,  for  the  religious  wants  of  her 
colonies,  or  for  the  better  maintenance  of  her  laborious  in- 
cumbents and  missionaries.  Maynooth,  the  Irish  seminary 
for  priests  of  the  Roman  communion,  is  endowed  with  a 
princely  revenue  by  the  State,  while  St.  Augustine's  in  Can- 
terbury, and  Trinity  in  Perth,  are  supported  only  by  the 
voluntary  offerings  of  her  faithful  laity.  In  fact,  there  is  at 
present,  among  the  rulers  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  a 
greater  inclination  to  favour  the  Communion  of  Rome,  than 
that  of  England. 

Such  being  the  actual  state  of  things,  all  that  is  said  by 
Dr.  Milner  concerning  the  persecution  of  his  brethren,  will 
now  be  considered  only  as  matter  of  history.  If  they  have 
suffered  wrong,  they  have  also,  by  his  own  concession,  in- 
flicted wrong.  Both  shall  be  considered  when  we  come  to 
the  letter  in  which  he  treats  of  religious  persecution.  Our 
arrangement  must  be  governed  by  his. 

Over  unreflecting  minds  the  Frontispiece  and  the  Title 
of  Dr.  Milner's  book  have  much  influence.  The  Frontis- 
piece is  called  a  Vine,  but  is  much  more  like  a  Cedar,  reach- 
ing from  earth  to  heaven.  The  inventor  has,  it  is  true, 
placed  Christ  crucified  as  the  vine ;  but  he  places  St.  Peter 
over  his  head,  with  the  succession  of  the  Papal  See  to  Pius 
VII.,  who  was  reigning  when  Dr.  Milner  wrote.  Above  is 
the  symbol  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  with  the  angels  and  faithful 
departed ;  and  at  the  extremity  of  each  branch  are  the  lopped 
and  withered  members  which  are,  or  are  to  be,  thrown  into 
the  fire.  Swedenborg,  Whitfield  and  Wesley,  Jansen,  Ar- 
minius  and  Gomar,  Melancthon,  Zuinglius,  Calvin  and 
Luther,  are  among  these  withered  branches  on  the  one  side  ; 
and  Condorcet,  Robespierre  and  Bricmie  (!)  Zinzendorff,  Vol- 
taire and  Rousseau,  George  Fox,  Bayle,  Chillingworth  and 
Servetus,  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  Protector  Somerset,  and 
Henry  VIII.,  on  the  other.  Happily  good  Edioard  VI.  and 
Cranmer,  Latimer  and  Ridley,  are  not  named,  and  so  we 
need  only  put  in  our  demurrer,  and  pass  on  to  the  Title. 

Though  adroitly  chosen,  it  is  borrowed    from   a  book 
long  since  consigned  to  oblivion.     Certamen  Religiosum, 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


or  Religious  Controversy,  was  the  title  of  a  book  pub- 
lished by  Dr.  Thomas  Bayly,  in  16'i9,  purporting  to 
be  a  conference  between  Charles  I.  and  the  Marquis 
of  Worcester,  "  but  blamed,"  says  Wood,  "  by  the  true 
sons  of  the  Church  of  England — because  the  Romish 
cause  is  there  set  out  in  great  pomp,  he  being  then  warping 
towards,  if  not  altogether  drawn  over,  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  it  was  looked  upon  by  some  as  nothing  else  but  his  pro- 
logue, in  order  to  the  declaring  himself  a  Papist,"  &c. 
*'  He  ....  became  a  grand  zealot  in  that  interest,  wherein 
(if  he  met  with  any  occasion)  he  would  break  forth  into  rage 
and  fury  against  the  Protestant  religion,  which  he  before  had 
preached  and  professed.  .  .  .  From  Holland  he  went  into  Flan- 
ders, and  settling  for  a  time  at  Doway,  he  published,  in  1654, 
*  The  END  TO  CoNTROVERSiE  between  the  Rom.  Catholick 
and  Protestant  Religions,  justified  by  all  the  several  man- 
ner of  ways,  whereby  all  kind  of  Controversies  of  what  na- 
ture soever,  are  usually  or  can  possibly  be  determined.'  "* 

This  title  of  Dr.  Bayly's  book  being  in  part  adopted  for 
a  work  of  similar  design.  Dr.  Milner  imagined  "  a  religious 
society  of  Protestants,"  entering  into  "  a  friendly  correspond- 
ence" with  him  as  "  a  Roman  Catholic  divine." — I  say  im- 
agined, because  his  antagonist  Dr.  Grier  affirmed  at  the 
time,  that  is,  in  1821,  when  the  fact  could  easily  be  ascer- 
tained, that  he  "  set  up  a  fictitious  Society  of  Protestant  Cor- 
respondents, and  shaped  the  letters  ascribed  to  them  in  such 
a  way  as  to  make  his  own  replies  appear  triumphant."f  Of 
the  supposititious  character  of  this  society  there  seems  to  be 
internal  evidence  in  its  heterogeneous  combination,  and  the 
imbecility  of  its  members.  Mr.  James  Brown  is  one  of  those 
whom  the  Times  newspaper  has  since  so  happily  called 
"  the  High  and  Dry."  He  glories  in  being  "a  staunchmem- 
her  of  our  happy  establishment  ;'^  while  Mrs.  Brown,  though 
she  *^  professes  an  equal  attachment  to  the  Church — cannot  re- 
frain  from  frequenting  the  meetings  and  supporting  the  mis- 
sions of  those  who  xmdermine^^ — the  Church  !  Dr.  Carey,  the 
worthy  rector,  like  most  others  of  his  learned  and  dignified 
brethren,  is  of  a  free  and  liberal  turn  of  mind,  (!)  explaining 


*  Athenae  Oxon,  vol.  i.  p.  486-7. 

t  Grier's  Reply,  prefatory  address,  p.  iv. 


18 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


away  the  mysteries,  and  a  great  many  other  Articles^'  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  Mr.  Brown,  when  he  was  a  boy, 
believed. — Mr.  and  Mrs.  Topham  are  of  the  Predestinarian 
and  Antinomian  class  of  Methodists  ;  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Askew 
mitigated  Arminians  of  Wesley's  connection  ;  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Rankin,  honest  Quakers;  Mr.  Barker  and  his  children,  ra- 
tiona^  dissenters  who  have  almost  universally  gone  into 
Socinianism  !* 

Whether  this  curious  Society  were,  or  were  not,  men  of 
straw,  set  up  like  nine-pins  for  the  purpose  of  being  knocked 
down  by  Dr.  Milner's  superior  rolling,  they  were  just  such 
a  company  as  a  wily  polemic  would  like  to  meet.  The  let- 
ters from  James  Brown  Esq.,  and  the  Essays  of  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Carey,  LL.  D.  together  with  the  occasional  letters 
of  Friend  Rankin  and  Mr.  Ebenezer  Topham,  and  the  ex- 
tracts from  the  Rev.  N.  N.,  prebendary  of  N.,  hardly  amount 
to  the  number  necessary  for  the  game,  and  are  beneath  con- 
tempt. The  letters  of  Dr.  Milner,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
about  forty-five  in  number,  kept  for  eighteen  years  under  the 
polishing  process  of  the  author.  Such  is  the  general  plan 
of  Dr.  Milner's  End  of  Religious  Controversy.  The  several 
subjects  are  arranged  under  three  heads,  forming  as  many 
parts.  The  first  is  on  the  rule  of  faith  or  the  method  of 
finding  out  the  true  religion.  The  second,  on  the  character- 
istics of  the  true  Church.  The  third,  on  rectifying  mistakes 
concerning  the  Catholic  Church.  This  order  I  shall  of 
course  follow. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE     RULE     OF     FAITH. 


Dr.  Milner's  first  letters  are  occupied  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  preliminaries.  He  requires  that  no  offence  be  taken 
by  his  Protestant  friends  if  he  uses  great  plainness  of  speech  ;t 
and  they  on  their  part  promise,  provided  they  may  "  censrure 
many  of  his  popes  and  other  clergy,"  that  they  will  not  be 


THE    rule    of    FA.ITH. 


19 


angry  and  quarrel  with  him  for  what  he  may  say  of  Calvin, 
George  Fox,  James  Navlor  or  even  Latimer  and  Cranmer  !* 
Calvin  and  Cranmer  in  juxtaposition  with  George  Fox  and 
James  Naylor !  Dr.  Milner  well  understands  the  art  of  put- 
ting his  antagonists  in  suspicious  company  !  He  discourses 
with  great  unction  about  the  danger  of  self-deception,  the 
necessity  of  freedom  from  religious  prejudices,  of  sincerity 
in  seeking  for  truth  in  opposition  to  worldly  interests,  of 
earnestness  to  serve  God  and  save  their  souls  !f  If  we  were 
to  do  the  same  to  members  of  his  communion,  we  should 
insult  them.  They,  forsooth,  and  all  converts  to  their  faith, 
have  no  need  of  such  warnings  !  He  proposes  especially, 
the  example  of  Anthony  Ulric,  duke  of  Brunswick  and 
Lunenburgh,  who  was  a  relation  "  of  his  Majesty,"  i.  e.  of 
George  IV.,  and  therefore  peculiarly  a  pattern  for  English- 
men. He,  when  he  had  begun  to  doubt  the  truth  of  Luther- 
anism,  prayed  for  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  resolved  to 
forsake  sin,  was  ready  to  embrace  the  indications  of  grace 
and  the  light  of  reason,  and  did  all  in  the  fear  of  God's 
righteous  judgment !  The  consequence  was  that  he  em- 
braced the  faith  of  Rome  !  All  this  is  the  beginning  of  a 
gentle  and  sly  assumption  that  his  is  the  Catholic  Church ! 

Having  thus  skillfully  arranged  his  preliminaries.  Dr. 
Milner  devotes  his  sixth  and  seventh  letters,  to  what  he  calls 
the  first  false  rule  of  faith,  private  inspiration.  This  he  de- 
fines to  meanii:  "an  immediate  light  and  motion  of  God's 
Spirit  communicated  to  each  individual."  Under  this  rule 
he  classes  the  ancient  Montanists,  the  Anabaptists,  the  Fami- 
ly of  Love,  the  Fifth-monarchy-men,  the  Quakers,  the  Mug- 
gletonians,  the  Labbadists.  the  Moravians,  the  Swedenborg- 
ians  and  the  Methodists. 

The  second  of  these  false  rules,  in  Dr.  Milner's  estima- 
tion, is  "  the  written  Word  of  God  or  the  Bible,  according  as 
it  is  understood  by  each  jmrticiilar  reader  or  hearer  of  itJ^ 
*'This,"  he  says,  "  is  the  professed  rule  of  the  more  regular 
sects  of  Protestants,  such  as  the  Lutherans,  the  Calvinists, 
the  Socinians,  the  Church-of-England-men  !  The  third  rule 
is  the  Word  of  God  at  large,  whether  written  in  the  Bible  or 
handed  down  from  the  Apostles  in  continued  succession,  by  the 


*  Letter  I. 


t  Letter  II. 


*  Letter  in. 


t  Letter  IV. 


X  Letter  VL 


I  ' 


20 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Catholic  Church,  and  as  it  is  understood  and  explained  hj  this 
Church."^     And  then  he  condescendingly  adds  ;  "  The  ques- 
tion  which  remains  for   our  inquiry  is,  whether  the  rule   or 
method  prescribed  by   the  Church   of  England   and   other 
more  rational  classes  of  Protestants,  or  that  prescribed  by 
the  Catholic  Church,  is  the  one  designed   by  our   Saviour 
Christ  for  finding  out  his  true  rcligion."f     The  Protestants 
OR   the   Catholic  Church !     Modest   assumption !     It  leads 
irresistibly  to  the  remembrance  of  a   conversation  between 
the  late  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  when   he  was  Cardinal,  and   a 
distinguished  Lutheran  gentleman   from  whom,  in   1.^31,  I 
received  the  narrative.     While  they  were  conversing  famil- 
iarly together,  the  Cardinal  used  the  expression — Extra  Ec- 
clesiam  nulla  salus — out  of  the  Church  there  is  no  salvation. 
We  believe  so  too,   replied  the  Lutheran.     The  Cardinal 
started  and  said,  Do  you  believe  that  we  shall  be  damned  ? 
— We  are  not  so  uncharitable,  said  the  other.     We  believe 
that  by  baptism   men   are   made  members  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  Christ  himself  hath  pronounced   baptism  to  be 
necessary  to  salvation.     Ah !  replied  the  Cardinal,  with  a 
sigh,  lut  our  Church  unfortunately  teaches  that  out  of  the 
Roman  Church  there  is  no  salvation  !     Disgraziatamentc,  un- 
fortunately, unhappily,  or  calamitously,  was  the  very  word 
he  used.     The  Church  of  Rome  has,  very  unfortunately  and 
calamitously  for  her,  decreed   herself  to  be  infallible.     She 
has  thereby  tied  a  millstone  about  her  neck,  which,  if  she 
casts  it  not  off,  will  finally  drown   her   in   the  depths  of  the 
sea.     I  doubt  not  that  many  of  her  sons  re-echo  the  sigh  of 
Gregory  XVI.,  from  tlie  bottom  of  their  hearts ;   and  if  re- 
port speaks  true,  his  successor,  Pius  IX.,  must  be  of  that 
number.     But  what  can  they  do  ?     The  Pope,  as  well  as  the 
meanest  of  his  clergy,  is  the  slave  of  his  own  svstem.     He 
can  do  nothing  without  the  consistory  of  his  Cardinals  ;  and 
the  pride  of  consistency  operates  to  prevent  the  acknowled^r, 
ment  of  error.  ° 

We  may  as  well  consider  this  question  now  about  the 
term  Catholic  ;  for  the  assumption  runs  through  the  whole 
of  Dr.  Milner's  book,  and  is  indeed  the  point  concernin<T 
which  the  members  of  his  communion  are  the  most  tenacious 
and  sensitive. 


*  Letter  VI 


t  Letter  VIII. 


THE    RULE   OF    FAITH. 


21 


In  his  XXVth  letter,  speaking  of  Catholicity  as  his  "  third 
mark  of  the  true  Church,"  he  says  :  "  Is  there  not,  among 
the  rival  churches,  one  exclusively  known  and  distinguished 
by  the  name  and  title  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  well  in 
England,  Holland,  and  other  countries  which  protest  against 
this  church,  as  in  those  which  adhere  to  it  ?  Does  not  this 
effulgent  mark  of  the  true  religion  so  incontestably  belong  to 
us,  in  spite  of  every  effort  to  obscure  it  by  the  nick-names  of 
Papists,  Romanists,  &;o.,  that  the  rule  of  St.  Cyril  and  St. 
Augustin  is  as  good  and  certain  now  as  it  was  in  their  times? 
What  I  mean  is  this  ;  if  any  stranger,  in  London,  Edinburgh, 
or  Amsterdam,  were  to  ask  his  way  to  the  Catholic  chapelyl 
would  risk  my  life  for  it  that  no  sober  Protestant  inhabitant 
would  direct  him  to  any  other  place  of  worship  than  ours." 
And  again,  in  the  same  letter,  speaking  of  "  candid  Protest- 
ants," he  says,  "  Every  time  that  each  of  them  addresses 
the  God  of  Truth,  either  in  solemn  worship,  or  in  private 
devotion,  he  fails  not  to  repeat,  /  believe  in  the  Catholic 
Church  :  and  yet  if  I  ask  him  the  question,  Are  you  a  Cath- 
olic ?  he  is  sure  to  answer  me.  No,  I  am  a  Protestant  ! 
Was  there  ever  a  more  glaring  instance  of  inconsistency 
and  self-condemnation  among  rational  beings !" 

Well  argued,  Dr.  Milner  !  Capital  appeal  ad  verecundiam  f 
A  Protestant  who  is  foolish  enough  to  say  that  he  is  not  a 
Catholic,  deserves  all  you  have  said  of  him.  What  "the 
rule  of  St.  Cyril  and  St.  Augustin"  was,  shall  be  considered 
when  we  come  to  the  subject.  Our  concern  now  is  with  the 
argument  which  Dr.  Milner  draws  from  the  assumed  conces- 
sion of  his  adversaries. 

The  whole  proceeds  from  a  juggle  of  the  word  Catholic, 
the  dexterous  substitution  of  one  usage  of  the  term  for  an- 
other. At  the  risk  of  being  tedious,  I  must  state  the  senses 
in  which  it  has  been  used  by  Greek  writers,  to  stop,  if  I  can, 
this  war  of  words. 

It  first  signifies,  universal,  or  general.  Thus  the  general 
resurrection  at  the  last  day  is  called  the  Catholic  resurrec- 
tion ;  and  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,  is  called  the  Catholic  sacrifice.* 


*  After  the  new  arrangement  of  the  Roman  Empire  by  Constantine, 
when  the  whole  118  provinces  were  consolidated  into  13  Dioceses,  the 

2* 


22 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


In  Ecclesiastical  usage,  the  Catholic  Church  signified,  the 
Church  Universal,  or  General,  dispersed  through  the  whole 
world.  From  this  general  signification  arose  other  shades  of 
meaning.  Considering  the  church  as  onCj  having  one  Lord, 
one  Faith,  xme  Baptism,  and  as  having  on  earth  no  abiding 
city,  it  was  usual,  even  from  Apostolic  times,  to  speak  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  sojourning  in  particular  places.  The  rise 
of  heresies,  separating  themselves  from  this  Catholic  Church, 
led  to  another  and  a  more  confined  sense  of  the  term  ;  and  this 
sense  more  especially  prevailed  when  the  Aiians,  supported 
by  imperial  power,  had  obtained  in  the  East  an  undue  pre- 
ponderance.  They^who  held  the  primitive  Catholic  faith 
were  exclusively  called  Catholics  .Sozomen  expressly  asserts 
(Lib.  vii.  0.  4.)  that  by  a  rescript  of  the  Emperor  Theodo- 
sius,  they  only  were  to  be  called  the  Catholic  Church  who 
worshipped  the  Holy  Trinity  as  equal  in  glory,  and  that  all 
who  believed  or  taught  otherwise  were  to  be  accounted 
heretics.  The  Arians  fell  with  the  political  power  which 
supported  them  ;  but  unhappily  the  Catholics  became  divided 
among  themselves,  and  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
the  Church  was  no  longer  what  it  was  before  that  period. 

All  this  the  well-informed  members  of  the  Roman  Com- 
munion know  ;  and  it  is  disingenuous  in  them  to  apply  the 
language  which  preceded  those  unhappy  divisions,  to  a  state 
of  things  essentially  different.  The  Armenians,  the  Syr- 
ians, and  the  Greeks,  hold  the  ancient  creeds,  retain  the 
ancient  Catholic  liturgies,  and  have  the  same  Apostolic  priest- 
hood, which  were  from  the  beginning  the  characteristics  of 
Catholic  faith  and  order. 

Observe  now  the  little  artifice  and  sly  management  by 
which  the  term  Catholic  Church  is  substituted  for  the  Roman 
Communion,  and  all  who  ^ro^e*^  against  the  novelties  of  that 
communion,  are  said  to  protest  against  the  Catholic  Church ! 
We  wish  not  io  give  or  unreasonably  to  take  offence.  But 
must  we  consent  to  surrender  the  name  of  Catholic  to  please 
these  gentlemen  ?  Or  must  we  abstain  from  calling  them 
Papists  and  Romanists,  while  they  make  no  scruple  in  call- 
officer  appointed  in  each  as  the  fiscal  agent  of  the  Emperor,  was  called 
the  Catholicos  of  the  Diocese.  It  was  afterwards  used  in  the  Church, 
and  is  so  employed  to  this  day  by  the  Armenians  and  Syrians  to  denote 
their  chief  Bishop. 


THE    RULE   OF    FAITH. 


23 


ing  us  Heretics  and  Schismatics  ?  As  they,  and  they  alone, 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Italian  Bishop  who  presides 
over  the  see  of  Rome,  and  who  has  arrogated  to  himself  the 
name  of  Papa  which  was  formerly  common  to  all  Bishops, 
those  who  uphold  his  claims  are  properly  called  Papists, 
As  they,  and  they  alone,  maintain  that  the  Roman  Church  is 
the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches,  no  term  can  be  niore 
appropriate  than  that  of  Romanists,  These  are  not  nick- 
names, as  Dr.  Milner  asserts,  for  a  nick-name  is  one  given  in 
scoflfor  contempt.  But  God  knows  that  we  give  them  with 
grief,  not  in  derision.  They  are  forced  upon  us  by  the  un- 
happy schisms  which  have  rent  the  Catholic  Church.  We 
cannot  do  as  they  desire — call  them  Catholics  ;  for  this  would 
be  an  acknowledgment  that  we  are  not  Catholics.  We  agree 
with  him  that  it  would  in  us  be  a  most  "  glaring  instance  of 
inconsistency  and  self-condemnation."  In  the  original  sense 
of  the  term,  we  are  not  so  arrogant  as  to  claim  the  title  of 
the  Catholic  or  Universal  Church.  But  in  those  derivative 
senses  which  were  in  use  from  the  time  of  Ignatius  and 
Polycarp  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  we  are  Catholics. 
Nay,  we  are  more  strictly  and  properly  Catholics  than  they  of 
the  Roman  Communion ;  for  we  hold,  as  I  hope  to  show  in 
the  course  of  these  pages,  those  characteristics,  and  those 
only,  by  which  the  Catholics  of  the  first  four  centuries  were 
essentially  distinguished.  This  cannot  justly  be  said  of 
them  ;  for  they  have  added  twelve  articles  to  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,  and  have  pronounced  all  to  be  under 
anathema  who  do  not  receive  them.  To  give  them  even  the 
qualified  name  of  Roman  Calholics,  is  a  stretch  of  courtesy 
in  our  own  wrong  which  ought  never  to  be  conceded  until 
they  admit  that  our  communion  are  English  or  Anglo-Catho- 
lies.  To  avoid  all  offensive  phraseology,  without  surrender- 
hvr  any  right,  I  shall  always  speak  of  them  as  the  Roman 
Communion. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject  which  is  now  properly  before 
us,  the  Rule  of  Faith  :  as  the  author  has  very  indulgently 
allowed  that  we  are  not  under  the  first  false  rule,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  defend  ourselves  where  we  are  not  attacked. 
Yet  I  cannot  but  marvel  that  he  should  have  allowed  this, 
when  he  qualifies  his  second  false  rule  of  faith,  the  Bible,  by 
saying,  ^'  according  as  it  is  understood  by  each  particular 


24 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


reader  or  hearer  of  it.'^  He  commends  the  duke  of  Bruns- 
wick and  Lunenburgh  because  in  examining  the  question  at 
issue  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Roman  Communion  he 
"  earnestly  implored  the  aid  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  with  all  his  power  begged  the  light  of  true  faith  from 
God  the  father  of  lights."  *  What  was  this,  I  ask,  but  to 
pray  for  private  inspiration?  or  did  he  mean  to  insinuate 
that  the  Anabaptists,  the  Quakers,  the  Methodists,  and  others 
whom  he  placed  under  his  first  false  rule,  depend  solely  on 
their  private  inspiration  and  reject  the  Bible  ?  or  that  the  Lu- 
therans and  Calvinists,  whom  he  places  under  his  second  false 
rule,  "  the  Bible  as  understood  by  each  particular  reader,'' 
think  no  "  motion  of  God's  Spirit  "  necessary  to  understand 
the  Bible  ?  or  did  he  mean  to  assert  that  both  they  under  the 
first  rule,  and  they  under  the  second,  never  pray  for  "  the  aid 
and  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  or  that  there  are  not  in  all 
these  sects  sincere  and  honest  men  who,  like  the  duke  of 
Brunswick  and  Lunenburgh  '*  make  a  strong  resolution,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  to  avoid  sin  ?"  If  he  did  not  so  insinuate 
or  mean,  I  ask,  where  is  the  distinction  between  his  first  and 
second  rules  ?  And  if  they  whom  he  includes  under  them, 
like  the  duke,  renounce  "all  sorts  of  prejudices  which  in- 
cline men  to  one  religion  more  than  another  ;"  if  they,  like 
the  duke,  bring  themselves  "to  a  perfect  indilFerence  so 
as  to  be  ready  to  embrace  whichsoever  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  light  of  reason  should  point  out  to  them,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  advantages  and  inconveniences  that 
might  attend  it  in  this  world  ;"  if  they,  like  the  duke,  "en- 
ter upon  this  deliberation  and  choice  "  as  they  would  "  wish 
to  have  done  it  at  the  hour  of  death,  and  in  a  full  conviction 
that  at  the  day  of  judgment  they  must  give  an  account  to 
God  why  they  followed  this  religion  in  preference  to  all  the 
rest;""]"  then  I  ask  whether  the  duke  of  Brunswick  and 
Lunenburgh  was  not  as  much  governed  by  "  private  inspi- 
ration "  and  "  private  interpretation  "  as  the  greatest  Protest- 
ant fanatic  or  enthusiast  whom  Dr.  Milner  could  name  ? 
The  fact  is,  that  private  judgment  is  absolutely  necessary  in 
all  rational  and  accountable  creatures  for  the  very  reason 
assigned  by  the  duke,  that  "  man  has  but  one  soul  which 


I 


•  Letter  IV. 


t  lb. 


THE    RULE    OF    FAITH. 


25 


will  be  eternally  either  damned  or  saved  ;"  and  the  necessity 
of  private  inspiration,  to  enlighten  the  understanding  and  pu- 
rify the  heart,  is  acknowledged  by  all  who  believe  that  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are   necessary.     The  question 
is  only  as  to  the  bounds  within  which  private  judgment  is  to 
he  exercised.     Dr.   Milner  ought  to  have    known,  and  his 
brethren  ought  now  to  know,  that  the  Church  of  England 
and    the   Churches   in  communion   with   her,    never    have 
admitted  the  extravagant  exercise  of  private  judgment  which 
he  imputes  to  them.     They  hold  the  ancient  creeds.     They 
maintain,  throughout  the  Prayer-book,  the  Catholic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures   as  the  rule  of  faith  and   practice. 
They  pray  continually  against  "  false-doctrine,  heresy,  and 
schism  ;"  and  "  for  the  Catholic  Church,  that  it  may  be  so 
guided  by  God's  good  Spirit,  that   all  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians  may  be  led  into  the  way  of  truth,  and 
hold  the  faith  in  unity  of  spirit,  in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  in 
righteousness  of  life."     They   court  investigation  whether 
throughout  the  Prayer-book  any  sectarian  principle  can  be 
found,  inconsistent  with  the  faith  of  the  first  four  centuries. 
The  consequence  is,  that  no  man  who  becomes  thoroughly 
imbued  with  their  system,  and  practices  according  to  it,  the 
duties  of  the  Christian  life,   can   use  the  right  of  private 
judgment  extravagantly.     They  require  no  more  with  re- 
gard to  their  rule  of  faith  than  what  the  Holy  Ghost  himself 
commendelh  in   praising  the  example  of  the  pious  Jews  of 
Berea  :*    "  These  were   more  noble  than  those  in  Thessa- 
lonica,  in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness  of 
mind,  and  searched  the  Scriptures  daily  whether  those  things 

were  so." 

After  all  this  flourish,  then,  about  the  first,  second,  and 
third  rules  of  faith,  the  simple  question  at  issue  is,  whether 
the  Bible,  the  written  Word  of  God,  or  what  Dr.  Milner  calls 
the  Word  of  God  at  large,  whether  written  or  unwritten,  as 
received  and  understood  and  explained  by  the  Roman  Com- 
munion, is  the  proper  rule  of  faith.  To  this  question  we  will 
now  proceed. 

*  Acts  xvii.  11. 


26 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  II. 


TRADITION. 


"  Handed  down,"  says  Dr.  Milner,  "  from  the  apos- 
tles in  continued  succession  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
as  it  is  understood  and  explained  by  this  Church."  Tra- 
dition is  rather  a  suspicious  word,  and  so  Dr.  Milner,  for 
fear  of  startling  his  Protestant  readers  in  the  outset,  substi- 
tutes for  it  "  Handed  down."  And  then  follows  exactly  the 
same  sort  of  juggle  as  he  uses  every  where  with  regard  to 
the  word  Catholic ;  that  is  to  say,  the  dexterous  substitution 
of  one  sense  in  which  the  word  tradition  is  used  for  another. 
We  are  again  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  verbal  criticism, 
before  the  subject  can  be  made  perfectly  clear  to  the  reader. 

The  Greek  word  naQadldw^ii  answers  to  the  Latin  trado, 
and  signifies  in  the  bad  sense  betray,  and  in  the  good  sense 
deliver  or  hand  over  from  one  to  another.     It  is  so  used,  ac- 
cording as  the  sense  requires,  both  in  the  authorized  Latin 
and  English  translations,  and  in  the  Old  as  well  as  the  New 
Testament.     God   delivered  the   law  to   Moses,  and   Moses 
delivered  it  to  the  children  of  Israel.     It  was  therefore  a  tra- 
dition handed  down  from  God  to  Moses,  and  from  Moses  to 
the  twelve  tribes.     The  commands  of  God  thus  delivered  to 
Moses  were  by  him  committed  to  writing  ;  and  his  autograph 
was  deposited  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  every  seventh  year 
was  brought  out  with  great  solemnity,  and   read  to  the  as- 
sembled people.*     Numerous  copies  of  it  were  made  by  ex- 
press command  ;  and  every  one  who  possessed  a  copy  had 
an  opportunity  once  in  seven  years  to  compare  his  copy  with 
the  original.     Thus  was  it  handed  down  from  age  to  ace: 
and  even  after  the  sacred  original  had  perished,  if  it  did  so 
perish,  in  the  flames  of  the  first  temple,  there  was  hardly  the 
possibility  of  error  in  the  recension  of  the  divinely  inspired 
Ezra,  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity.     This  tradition  from 
God  by  the  hand  of  Moses,  thus  delivered^  continued  until 
the  time  of  our  Lord  Christ,  and  was  honoured   by  Him  as 
the  commandment  of  God.     But  He  did  not  so  honour  the 
tradition  of  the   elders ;  for  He  accused  the  Pharisees  of 

*  Deut.  xxxi.  9-13. 


i» 


i 


TRADITION. 


27 


transgressing  and  even  nullifying  the  commandment  of  God 
{pia)  by  means  of  their  tradition."^ 

In  the  Jewish  Talmud  the  word  Masora  signifies  Tradi- 
tion ;  and  the  Masoretic  Jews  hold  precisely  the  same  the- 
ory with  regard  to  the  unwritten  law,  which  is  now  held  by 
the  Roman  Communion  concerning  the  unwritten  word  of 
God  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that 
the  word  Tradition  may  be  employed  in  different  senses,  and 
that  its  value  depends  upon  the  sources  from  which  it  is 
derived.  The  Jews  would  not  give  the  title  of  Mishna,  or 
second  law,  to  their  traditions  unless  they  believed  that  they 
were  of  divine  origin,  and  had  been  orally  handed  down  from 
the  time  of  Moses  and  Aaron  and  the  elders.f  We  proceed 
then  to  examine  the  authority  of  Tradition,  in  its  various 
senses,  as  received  and  taught  in  the  Roman  Communion. 

Cardinal  Bellarmine,  "  the  most  acute,  the  most  methodical, 
the  most  comprehensive,  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  most 
candid,  ixmor\g  the  controversialists  of  the  Church  of  Rome," 
as  a  late  English  Bishop  justly  calls  him,^  acknowledges  the 
truth  of  what  has  now  been  remarked  ;  for  he  says,§  *•  Tra- 
dition signifies  all  doctrine  whether  written  or  unwritten, 
which  is  communicated  from  one  to  another."  He  adds, 
however,  that  this  word  is  taken  by  theologians  in  the  more 
confined  sense  of  unwritten  doctrine,  in  contradistinction  to 
Scripture,  not  because  such  doctrine  was  never  written, 
but  as  not  written  by  its  original  author.  He  then  di- 
vides traditions  under  two  heads :  the  first  so  denominated 
from  their  authors,  the  second  from  their  subject-matter. 
This  second  division  of  traditions,  he  further  subdivides  into 
traditions  dejide  et  de  moribus,  concerning  faith  and  manners 
or  morals.  They  are  also,  he  says,  perpetual  or  temporary, 
universal  or  particular,  necessary  or  {libera)  indifferent. 
With  the  exception  o{ perpetual  tradition,  or  tradition  institut- 
ed that  it  should  always  be  observed  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
universal  tradition,  delivered  to  be  observed  by  the^  whole 
Church,  and  necessary  tradition,  delivered  in  the  formjof  pre. 
cept,  the  other  traditions  classed  under  this  head  are  not 

*  S.  Matt.  XV.  2-9.  t  Robinson's  Calmet,  Art.  Talmud. 

X  Marsh's  Comparative  View  of  the  Churches  of  England  and  Rome, 

p.  4.  • 

§  "  Nomen  traditionis  generale  est  et  significat  oranem  doctrinam, 
sive  scriptam  sive  non  scriptam,  quae  ab  uno  communicatur  alteri." 


28 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


binding  upon  the  conscience.  Such  are,  defide,  the  perpet- 
ual virginity  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  that  there  were  only 
four  gospels ;  and  de  morihus,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  fasts  or 
feasts  on  certain  days,  &c.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  this 
second  division,  excepting  the  perpetual,  universal,  and 
necessary  traditions,  cannot  be  considered,  even  by  the  Ro- 
man Communion,  as  coming  within  their  rule  of  faith.  We 
are  confined,  therefore,  to  the  first  division  ;  and  as  that  is 
very  fairly  abridged  from  Bellarmine,  by  Bishop  Marsh,  I 
shall  give  it  in  his  words.  "  The  first  kind  Bellarmine  calls 
divine  tradition  ;  which  relates  to  doctrines  delivered  to  the 
apostles  by  Christ  hifiiselfy  but  which,  though  taught  also  by 
the  apostles,  were  left  by  them  unrecorded.  The  second 
kind  he  calls  apostolical  tradition  ;  which  relates  to  doc- 
trines likewise  taught  by  the  apostles,  and  likewise  left  unre- 
corded ;  yet  so  far  differing  from  the  former  kind  that  the 
apostles  received  them  not  from  the  instructions  of  Christ, 
but  from  the  dictates  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now  doctrines 
taught  by  the  apostles,  whether  originally  received  from 
Christ  himself y  or  afterwards  suggested  to  them  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  were,  in  either  case,  doctrines  apostolical :  and  hence 
the  term  <  apostolical,'  though  used  as  an  ephhet  descriptive 
of  the  second  kind,  is  frequently  applied  also  to  tradition  of 
the  first  kind.  On  the  other  hand,  the  term  *  divine,'  though 
used  as  an  epithet  descriptive  oUhe  first  kind,  is  applied  also 
to  tradition  of  the  second  kind.  For  doctrines,  sufrrrested 
to  the  apostles  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  no  less  divine  than 
the  doctrines  which  they  had  received  from  Christ  himself. 
It  appears  then  that  both  kinds  may  properly  be  referred  to 
one  and  the  same  class  ;  and  they  frequently" are  so  referred. 
Indeed,  they  are  always  comprehended  in  the  term  *  tradi- 
iiony*  when  tradition  is  used,  as  at  present,  to  denote  the 
uiiwritten  Word  of  God :  for  they  are  nothing  less  than  the 
constituent  parts  of  that  unwritten  Word. 

**But.  . .  .  there  is  a  third  kind  of  tradition  mentioned  by 
Bellarmine  which  must  he  carefully  distinguished  from  the  two 
former,  as  it  is  totally  different  from  them,  both  in  origin  and 
in  quality.  The  two  former  claim  a  divirie  origin  ;  and,  in- 
deed,  unless  a  divine  origin  were  ascribed  to  them,  they  could 
not  be  at  all  considered  as  a  part  of  God's  Word.  But  the 
third  kind  of  tradition  is  confessedly  of  human  origin  ;  and 
is  described  as  such  by"  Bellarmine  himself j  "for  he  says: 


TRADITION. 


29 


'  Ecclesiastical  traditions  are  properly  those  ancient  customs 
begun  by  prelates  or  people,  which  gradually,  and  by  tacit 
consent,  have  obtained  the  force  oHaw.'  "* 

Now  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Churches  in  com- 
munion with  her,  do  not  deny,  certainly,  what  an  Apostle 
has  asserted,f  that  the  written  gospels  do  not  contain  all  that 
Jesus  did  or  said.  Nor  do  they  deny  that  the  Apostles,  in  pro- 
claiming the  Gospel  and  establishing  the  Church,  did  and  said 
many  things  which  could  not  properly  enter  into  the  apos- 
tolic writings  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us.  Let  it  be 
proved,  then,  that  any  doctrine  or  practice  proceeded  from 
Christ  and  His  Apostles,  and  we  receive  and  embrace  it. 
"  The  question  is  not,"  as  Bellarmine  well  observes,  "  how 
great  is  the  force  of  divine  and  apostolic  traditions,  but  whether 
any  tradition  be  truly  divine  or  apostolical.^^  By  an  ex- 
amination of  the  Prayer-book,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  very 
examples  by  which  Bellarmine  illustrates  his  meaning  as  to 
what  constitute  divine  and  apostolic  traditions,  viz.,  the  mat- 
ter and  form  of  the  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ,  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  the  Lenten  fast,  the  ember-days  at  the  four 
seasons,  and  we  may  add  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day 
or  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  are  all 
expressly  admitted  in  our  communion,  though,  as  we  shall 
soon  see,  for  a  different  reason.  We  may  say  boldly,  that 
all  which  can  be  fairly  proved  to  have  been  practices 
enjoined  by  Christ  or  his  Apostles,  are  by  us  observed. 
Bellarmine,  on  the  authority  of  St.  Cyprian,  speaks  of  the 
mixture  of  wine  and  water  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist. He  has  slightly  misrepresented  his  authority ;  for  St. 
Cyprian  is  arguing  with  the  Encratitae  of  his  day  against  the 
use  of  water  only,  without  wine,  not  the  use  of  wine  only, 
without  water4  This  is  a  very  essential  difference.  But, 
admitting  the  fact  that  it  was  an  apostolic  tradition,  they 
who  consider  it  so  may  lawfully  practice  it ;  for  in  the  first 
Prayer-book  of  Edward  VI.  it  was  enjoined,  and  in  the  sub- 
sequent revisions  it  was  not  forbidden.  Bishop  Andrews 
always  used   it,   and  in  his  office   for  the  consecration   of 

*  Bellarm.  de  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  iv.  cap.  ii.,  and  Marsh,  Comparative 
View,  pp.  6-8. 

t  St.  John,  XX.  30,  31  ;  xxi.  24,  25. 
t  S.  Cypr,  Op.  Epist.  63,  ad  Caecilium. 


\ 


so 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


churches,  ordered  it  to  be  used.*  In  the  Scottisli  commu- 
nion office,  the  injunction  of  the  first  Prayer-book  of  Edward 
VI.  is  not  retained,  and  yet  the  practice'continues.  Bishop 
Seabury  to  his  dyin^:  day  mingled  a  little  water  in  the  cup. 
His  successor,  though  he  approved  the  practice,  considered 
it  as  among  the  udidipoQvc,  or  things  indifferent.  Bishop 
Clagget  of  Maryland,  it  is  believed,  always  retained  it. 
The  question,  like  that  of  leavened  or  unleavened  bread, 
should  never  be  considered  of  sufficient  moment  to  furnish 
ground  for  separation. 

With  regard  to  all  these  traditions,  however,  it  must  be 
observed  that  they  were  not  oral,  but  ocular.     "  It  is  not," 
as  Bishop  Marsh  justly  observes,  "with  doctrines  as  it  'is 
with  ceremonies,  or  even  with  the  usages  of  civil  laio.     The 
daily  practice  of  the  Church,  or  the  daily  practice  of  courts 
of  justice,  may  preserve  unaltered,  through  a  succession  of 
ages,  the  forms  which  are  apparent  to  the  external  senses. 
But  articles  o^  faith  which   are  objects  only  of  the  inward 
sense,  must  unavoidably,  when  transmitted  only  from  mouth 
to  mouth,  undergo  in  a  very  short  period  material  alterations. 
It  is  therefore  in  the  highest  degree   improbable  that  any 
doctrine  coming  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  should  have 
been  left  unrecorded  in  the  New  Testament. "f 

What  then  does  St.  Paul  mean  when  he  praises  the  Corin- 
thians X  for  keeping  rug  TiagMaeig,  the  traditions,  rendered  in 
our  translation  the  ordinances,  and  in  that  of  St.  Jerome, 
prcBcepta,  the  precepts,  he  had  delivered  to  them  ?  We  an- 
swer,  that  St.  Jerome  and  our  translation  have  honestly  given 
the  meaning.  The  whole  context  shows  that  they  were 
rules  of  discipline. 

And  what  does  the  same  Apostle  mean  when  he  says  to 
the  Thessalonians,§  "  Stand  fast  and  hold  rug  na^adoang,  the 
traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  ^by  word  or 
our  epistle?"  We  answer,  precisely  what  he  meant  in 
1  Cor.  xi.  2,  and  as  St.  Jerome  and  consequently  the  Rheims 
version  have  there  rendered  it,  precepts.  And  so  it  clearly 
means  in  the  next  chapter,||  "  Now  we  command  you,  breth- 

*  Wheatley,  c.  6,  §  10.     Sparrow's  Collection,  pp  395,  396. 
t  Marsh's  Conipar.  View,  pp.  G7,  68.  t  1  Cor.  xi.  2 

§  2  Thess.  ii.  15.  ||  o  xiiess.  iii.  6. 


TRADITION. 


31 


ren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw 
yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly  and 
not  xaT«  TTjv  TTagadoaiv,  after  the  tradition  which  he  received 
of  us."  The  Apostle  proceeds  immediately  to  illustrate  His 
meaning :  "  For  yourselves  know  how  ye  ought  to  follow  us ; 
for  we  behaved  not  ourselves  disorderly  among  you."  In 
other  words,  both  by  precept  and  example  we  commanded  you 
— not  to  he  idle — not  to  he  husy -bodies — not  to  be  weary  in 
well  doing,  "  and  if  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by  this 
epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that 
he  may  be  ashamed."  The  context  shows  clearly  that  to 
the  Thessalonians  as  well  as  to  the  Corinthians,  the  traditions 
of  which  the  Apostle  spake  were  rules  of  discipline. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  did  our  translators  render  the 
same  word,  hagadoaeig,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  ordinances,  and  in 
2  Thess.  ii.  15,  traditions?  We  answer,  because  they  well 
knew  the  use  made  of  the  latter  text,  and  wished  to  avoid  the 
imputation  cast  upon  the  previous  translators,  in  the  note  to 
the  Rhemish  version.  Archbishop  Cranmer's  Bible,  a.  d. 
1539-40,  translates  both  1  Cor.  xi.  2  and  2  Thess.  ii.  15, 
"  kepe  the  ordinaunces  ;"  and  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  "  after  the  institu- 
cion  whyche  ye  receaved  of  us."  The  Geneva  or  Puritan 
Bible,  A.  D.  1560,  has,  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  "keepe  the  ordinances ;'' 
2  Thess.  ii.  15,  *'keepe  the  instructions ;^^  iii.  6,  "after  the 
instruction."  The  Bishops'  Bible,  a.  d.  1568,  reads,  1  Cor. 
xi.  2,  "  keepe  the  ordinances  ;"  2  Thess.  ii.  15,  "  keepe  the 
instructions  ;"  iii.  6,  "  after  the  instruction."  Hence,  in  the 
notes  to  the  Rhemish  translation,  a.  d,  1582,  it  is  said, 
"  The  Heretikes,"  meaning  by  this  term  the  English  trans- 
lators, "  purposely,  guilfully,  and  of  il  conscience — refraine 
in  their  translations,  from  the  ecclesiastical  and  most  usual 
word  tradition  ....  Here,  therefore,  and  in  the  like  places," 
(and  they  quote  in  the  margin,  1  Cor.  xi. ;  2  Thess.  iii.) 
"  that  the  reader  might  not  so  easily  like  of  traditions  un- 
written, here  commended  by  the  Apostle,  they  translate  it, 
instructions,  constitutions,  ordinances,  and  what  they  can  in- 
vent els,  to  hide  the  truth  from  the  simple  or  unwarie 
Reader,  whose  translations  have  no  other  end,  but  to  beguile 
such  by  art  and  conveiance."  In  their  zeal  to  convict  the 
English  translators  of  guile,  deceit,  and  fraud,  the  Jesuits  of 
Rheims  wound  not  only  St.  Jerome  but  themselves  too ;  for, 


32 


REPLY    TO    MILNER*S   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


in  X  Cor.  xi.  2,  they  follow  him  in  translating  nagaSoasig  not 
traditions^  but  precepts ;  and  it  will  be   hard  to  show  that 
precepts  do  not  mean  ordinances  or  instructions.    But  to  show 
that  there  was  no  fear,  and  no  dishonesty  or  ill  design,  the 
translators  of  King  James's  Bible,  a.  d.  1611,translated  in  the 
several  texts  as  St.  Jerome  and  the  Rhemish  translators  had 
set  them  the  example.     It  will  be  evident,  therefore,  to  every 
candid  and  ingenuous  mind,  that  there  is  no  disposition  on 
our  part  to  evade  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  St.  Paul's 
language.     On  the  contrary,  we  say,  and  that  plainly  and 
openly,  that  it  is  an  arrogant  assumption  of  the  very  point  at 
issue,  to  assert  that  he  meant  the  unwritten  tradition  of 
his  doctrine.     We  say  that  in  the  fourteen  epistles  which 
bear  his  name,  he   did  record  the  doctrine  which  he,  as  a 
divinely  inspired  Apostle,  thought  it  necessary  to  deliver,  in 
addition  to  the"  already  written  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  received  by  him.     St.  Paul's  traditions  of  doctrine 
were  written  traditions.     His  Epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians  were  among  the  earliest,  and  are  comparatively  short. 
Who  will  undertake  to  prove  that  doctrines,  not  recorded  in 
them,  were  not  afterwards  recorded  in  his  other  epistles  ? 
"If  he   recorded  them  any  where,^'  as  Bishop  Marsh  justly 
observes,  "  they  are  not  at  present,'^  (and  were  not,  I  will  add, 
in  the  age  succeeding  his,  in  the  sense  o^  unwritten  but  writ- 
ten verities,)  "  apostolical  traditions.    What  they  were  when 
he  wrote  to  the  Thessalonians  is  a  question  foreign  to  the 
purpose."* 

Having  thus  seen  the  various  senses  of  the  word  tradition, 
let  us  now  proceed  to  state  clearly  the  difference  on  this  sub- 
ject between  the  Roman  and  English  communions.  I  have 
before  me  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in 
the  authentic  edition  printed  at  Rome  in  1564.  From  the 
fourth  session,  celebrated  on  the  eighth  of  April,  1546,  at  p. 
XX.,  I  lay  before  the  reader  the  following  extract :  "  This 
sacred  oecumenical  and  general  Synod  of  Trent,  lawfully 
assembled  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  presided  over  by  the  three 
Legates  of  the  Apostolic  See,  having  this  object  perpetually 
in  view,  that,  errors  being  removed,  the  real  purity  of  the 
Gospel  may  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  which,  promised 


*  Conip.  View,  p.  G7, 


TRADITION. 


33 


aforetime  by  the  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  first  promulgated  by  his  own 
mouth,  and  afterwards  ordained  to  be  preached  to  every 
creature  by  the  Apostles,  as  being  a  fountain  both  of  saving 
truth  and  instruction  of  manners  (morum  disciplinse)  ;  know- 
ing, further,  that  this  truth  and  instruction  is  contained  in 
the  written  books  and  in  the  unwritten  traditions,  which, 
having  been  received  by  the  Apostles  either  from  the  mouth 
of  Christ  himself,  or  from  the  dictates  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
were  handed  down  and  transmitted  even  to  us  ;  following  the 
example  of  the  orthodox  Fathers,  receives  and  venerates,  with 
sentiments  of  equal  piety  and  reverence  (pari  pietatis  affectu 
ac  reverentia  suscipit  et  veneratur),  all  the  books,  as  well  of 
the  Old  as  of  the  New  Testament,  since  one  God  was  the 
Author  of  them  both,  and  also  the  traditions  relating  as 
well  to  faith  as  to  morals,  inasmuch  as,  coming  either  from 
the  mouth  of  Christ  himself  or  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  have  been  preserved  in  the  Catholic  Church  in  unin- 
terrupted succession."  It  then  proceeds  to  enumerate  the 
books  which  it  receives  as  the  canon  of  Scripture,  concern- 
ing which  we  shall  have  to  speak  hereafter,  and  then  con- 
tinues thus :  "  But  if  any  one  shall  not  receive  as  sacred  and 
canonical,  those  entire  books,  with  all  their  parts,  so  as  they 
are  usually  read  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  contained  in 
the  ancient  Vulgate  Latin  edition,  or  shall  knowingly  and 
designedly  contemn  the  aforesaid  traditions,  {anathema  sit,) 
let  him  be  accursed.  Let  all  men,  therefore,  understand  in 
what  order  and  method  this  Synod,  after  laying  the  founda- 
tion of  a  confession  of  faith,  is  about  to  proceed,  and  what 
testimonies  and  authorities  it  chiefly  intends  to  use  for  the 
confirmation  of  doctrines  (dogmatibus)  and  the  establishment 
of  morals  (moribus)  in  the  Church."* 

Although  this  decree  was  established  in  1546,  it  was  not 
confirmed  until  the  termination  of  the  Council  in  1564.  In 
the  mean  time  two  synods  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
held  in  London  ;  one  in  1552,  and  the  other  in  1562.  On 
this  subject  of  the  rule  of  faith,  they  set  forth  the  following 
Article  : 


*  Dr.  Marsh's  Translation,  Comp.  View,  pp.  22-25. 


34 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S   END    OF    CONTROVEYSY. 


1552. 


1562. 


Holy  Scripture    containeth    all  Holy    Scripture   containeth    all 

things  necessary  to  salvation :  so      things  necessary  to  salvation ;  so 
that   whatsoever    is   neither   read      that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein, 
therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby      nor  may  be  proved  thereby 
although  it  be  sometime  received 
of  the  faithful  as  godly  and  profit- 
able for  an  order  and  comeliness, 

yet  no  man  ought  to  be  constrained  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man 
to  believe  it  as  an  article  of  faith,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an 
or  reputed  requisite  to  the  necessi-  article  of  faith  or  be  thought  re- 
ty  of  salvation.  quisite  or    necessary  to   salvation. 

In  the  name  of  the  holy  Scripture  we  do  understand  those  Canonical 
Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any 
doubt  in  the  Church. — Bp.  Sparrow's  Collection,  pp.  42,  92. 

This  Article,  it  will  at  once  be  seen,  is  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  Decree  of  Xhe  fourth  session  of  the  Synod  of  Trent. 
The  Tridentine  Council  receives  and  venerates  with  equal 
piety  and  reverence^  the  books  which  it  enumerates  as  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  and  the  divine  xind  apostolical  traditions. 
It  does  not  indeed  use  the  terms  divine  and  apostolical,  but  it 
clearly  defines  those  traditions,  as  Bellarmine  defined  them, 
to  be  unwritten  truth  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles  handed 
down  and  transmitted  by  and  through  the  Orthodox  Fathers 
even  to  usj  i.  e.  the  Council  of  Trent.  It  concludes  with  a 
declaration  ybr  all  men  to  knoio  and  under  stand,  what  testimO' 
nies  and  authorities  the  Synod  chiefly  intends  to  use  for  the 
confirmation  of  doctrines  and  the  establishment  of  morals  in 
the  Church."  And  it  pronounces  a  curse  upon  all  who 
"  knowingly  and  designedly  contemn  the  aforesaid  tradi- 
tions." 

•The  Synods  of  London  did  not  curse,  but  they  declared 
that  no  testimony  and  no  authority  could  be  considered  as 
establishing  an  article  of  faith,  but  the  written  word  of  God, 
They  did  not  reject  "the  orthodox  Fathers,"  as  hwnan  testi- 
mony ;  nor  did  they  slight  any  proof  to  be  gathered  from  the 
Fathers  either  concerning  the  Canon  of  Scripture  itself,  or 
the  right  interpretation  of  Scripture.  And  as.  to  the  practice 
of  the  Church,  they  retained,  as  the  Prayer-book  shows,  all 
that  could  be  proved  to  have  been  handed  ^down  from  the 
Apostolic  age. 

Beside  the  Divine  and  Apostolical,  it  will  be  recollected 


TRADITION. 


35 


that  a  third  kind  of  tradition  is  called  by  Bellarmine  the 
Ecclesiastical.  This  is  confessedly  of  human  origin  :  for  he 
says,  **  Ecclesiastical  traditions  are  properly  those  ancient 
customs  begun  by  prelates  or  people  which  gradually  and  by 
tacit  consent  have  obtained  the  force  of  law."*  It  was 
against  this  idea  of  prescription  that  the  two  Synods  of  the 
English  Church  directed  the  present  thirty-fourth  Article 
which  bears  the  title  "  Of  the  Traditions  of  the  Church,"  or  as 
expressed  in  the  Latin,  Traditiones  Ecclesiasticce,  Ecclesias- 
tical Traditions. 

"It  is  not  necessary  that  Traditions  and  Ceremonies  be  in 
all  places  one  or  utterly  like,  for  at  all  times  they  have  been 
divers,  and  may  be  changed  according  to  the  diversity  of 
countries  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  ordained 
against  God's  Word.  Whosoever  through  his  private  judg- 
ment willingly  and  purposely  doth  openly  break  the  Tradi- 
tions and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  which  be  not  repugnant 
to  the  Word  of  God,  and  be  ordained  and  approved  by  com- 
mon authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly  (that  other  may 
fear  to  do  the  like)  as  one  that  ofFendeth  against  the  common 
order  of  the  Church,  and  hurteth  the  authority  of  the  ma- 
gistrate, and  woundeth  the  consciences  of  weak  brethren." 
Thus  far  the  Article  in  both  Synods  is  the  same.  The 
Synod  of  1562  adds,  "  Every  particular  or  National  Church, 
hath  authority  to  ordain,  change,  and  abolish  Ceremonies  or 
Rites  of  the  Churcli,  ordained  only  by  men's  authority,  so  that 
all  things  be  done  to  edifying.''-|- 

The  sixth  Article,  then,  referred  exclusively  to  the  Divine 
and  Apostolic  Traditions  as  the  unwritten  Word  of  God  ;  the 
thirty-fourth  Article,  exclusively  to  Ecclesiastical  Traditions, 
which  being  confessedly  human,  cannot  be  claimed  as  the 
unwritten  Word  of  God,  and  therefore  as  a  part  of  the  Rule 

of  faith. 

The  Council  of  Trent  professes  only  an  e^waZ  veneration 
for  Scripture  and  Tradition  as  constituting  together  the  Rule 
of  faith  ;  but  it  will  be  found  upon  examination  that  more 
importance  and  authority  is  given  to  the  unwritten  than  to 
the  written  Word.     Tlie  unwritten  Word  is  considered  as 


*  De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  iv,  cap.  ii. 

t  Bp.  Sparrow's  Collection,  pp.  50,  62,  103. 


36 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


containing  fully  and  clearly  what  the  loriUen  Word  does  not 
contain,  or  at  most  contains  imperfectly  and  obscurely.  To 
remedy  therefore  the  supposed  deficiencies  of  the  written 
Word,  it  applies  the  aid  of  the  unwritten  Word.  The  Com- 
rnent  claims  the  sa7ne  divine  origin  as  the  text  itself* 

But  what  is  more  :  Dr.  Milner  cautiously  adds,  that  this 
Tradition  is  to  be  received  "  as  it  is  understood  and  explained 
by  this  Church  /"f  This  unwritten  Word  of  God  {inde- 
pendent, of  course,  of  the  Bible,  for  if  found  in  the  Bible  it 
is  not  unwritten), — contained  in  the  Fathers,  is  to  be  received 
as  the  Roman  Communion  understand  and  explain  the  Fa- 
thers !  Truly,  this  "  unerring  judge  of  controversy^^  must 
save  all  men  the  trouble  of  thinking  ;  for  we  have  nothing 
to  do  but  to  receive  what  they  give  us ;  and  there  is  an  end 
of  all  controversy  ! 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  and  reflect  upon  the  enormous 
character  of  this  assumption.  "  The  real  purity  of  the  Gos- 
pel," says  the  Council  of  Trent,  "  contained  in  unwritten 
Traditions — received  by  the  Apostles — from  Christ  or  the 
Holy  Ghost — handed  down  and  transmitted  eveyi  to  us." 
"  The  Orthodox  Fathers"  from  the  Apostolic  age  downwards, 
but  only  as  they  are  interpreted  by  those  of  the  Roman 
Communion  ! — Eighteen  General  Councils,  from  the  first 
council  of  Nicsea  in  325  to  that  of  Trent  in  1546,  each 
ratifying  and  confirming  the  proceedings  of  all  the  preceding 
councils,  but  carefully  excepting  those  which  decreed  any 
thing  different  from  the  testimony  allowed  by  the  Roman 
Church ! — All  the  Canon  Law  for  nearly  1500  years,  as  far 
as  doctrines  are  concerned,  including  even  the  forgeries 
which  had  passed  current,  and  influenced  the  faith  of  uncrit- 
ical and  undiscerning  ages ! — All,  not  only  put  upon  a  level 
with  the  Bible,  ve7ierated  and  received  "  with  sentiments  of 
equal  piety  and  reverence  as  the  unwritten  word  of  Christ 
and  his  inspired  Apostles,"  but  even  paramount  to  the  written 
Word  in  importance  and  influence,  because  full  and  clear, 
where  the  Bible  is  silent,  ambiguous,  or  obscure ! — Can  any 
one  imagine  a  more  monstrous  assumption  ?  A  whole  li- 
brary, and  a  very  large  library  too,  bound  down  upon  the 
consciences  of  all  men  ;  and  therefore,  as  all .  men  cannot 


*  Marsh's  Comp.  View,  p.  15. 


t  Letter  Vf. 


TRADITION. 


37 


examine  this  library  themselves,  to  be  received  on  the  oral 
testimony  of  an  Italian  Bishop,  and  the  prelates  and  priests 
who  hold  communion  with  him  ?  Why,  we  may  well  ex- 
claim with  the  Apostle,  why  lay  such  an  unbearable  yoke 
upon  the  neck  of  Christ's  disciples  ? 

In  strong  contrast  with  such  a  burthen,  view  the  declara- 
tion of  the  English  Synods.  The  Bible,  the  written  word  of 
God,  in  its  true  intent  and  meaning,  is  the  only  Rule  of  that 
faith  which  is  necessary  to  salvation.  But  in  saying  this, 
they  did  not  intend,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  to  exclude 
"the  Orthodox  Fathers,"  as  human  testimony.  What  they 
contended  against,  was  the  assumption  of  their  evidence  being 
divine  testinTony.  They  willingly  took  them  as  witnesses  to 
matters  of  fact, — witnesses,  the  value  of  whose  testimony  is 
to  be  weighed,  just  as  the  value  of  all  testimony  is  weighed 
in  the  ordinary  concerns  of  life.  Contemporaneous  evidence 
of  faith  and  practice  is  always  to  be  received,  and  is  received 
in  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  Courts  of  justice,  with  high 
consideration.  Concerning  the  Bible  this  testimony  is  to  be 
regarded,  first,  as  to  its  genuineness  and  authenticity  j  and, 
secondly,  as  to  its  meaning.  We  prove  the  genuineness  of 
the  Bible,  just  as  we  prove  the  genuineness  of  any  other 
ancient  book  ;  only  that  the  proofs  in  favour  of  the  Bible  are 
vastly  greater  than  for  any  other  book  in  existence.  Manu- 
scripts, versions,  and  innumerable  quotations  from  age  to  age, 
all  agreeing  in  the  main,  and  with  those  trifling  variations 

Quas  aut  incuria  fudit, 
Aut  huraana  parum  cavit  natura, 

the  collections  of  which  prove,  in  the  most  surprising  man- 
ner, the  general  accuracy  of  the  whole  ; — these  are  the  proofs 
by  which  we  sustain  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text.  Its 
authenticity  we  admit  on  the  combined  testimony  of  God's 
church,  before  and  after  the  passion  of  our  Lord  Christ.  It 
is  traditive  testimony,  but  it  is  human  testimony  ;  and  no  one 
who  clearly  understands  the  several  meanings  of  the  word 
Tradition,  will  confound  this  with  what  is  meant  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  Bellarmine,  and  Dr.  Milner. 

So  it  is  with  regard  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
Bible.     Even  Chillingworth,  who  first  used  the  expression 

3 


d8 


REPLY    TO    milker's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


«  the  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Protestants  :"*  Chillingworth, 
whom  Dr.  Milner  cannot  name  without  some  vituperative 
epithet,  acknowledges  the  value  of  traditive  interpretation.f 
This  subject  is  perfectly  clear  and  well  understood  with  re- 
gard to  human  constitutions  and  ordinances.  If  any  question 
arise  as  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  a  written  human 
law,  it  is  usual  to  inquire,  What  was  the  construction  of  it 
when  it  was  first  enacted  ?  And  if  any  continuous  practice 
can  be  shown  which  determines  the  sense  of  it  when  first 
received,  that  practice  is  viewed  as  a  traditive  interpretation. 
In  applying  this  to  matters  of  faith,  let  us  take,  as  an  exam- 
ple, the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  No  one  who  goes  back  to 
the  earliest  Christians  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us, 
can  help  being  struck  with  the  artless  and  fervent  simplicity 
with  which  they  express  their  faith  in  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  Three  in  One  and  One  in  Three. 
They  may  not  use  all  the  nice  dialectics  of  a  later  Theology  ; 
but  they  quote  the  very  same  Scriptures  which  we  quote, 
and  in  the  sense  in  which  we  receive  them.  They  there- 
fore afford  the  most  convincing  proof  that  our  belief  was 
that  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  the  earliest  and  purest 
ages.  In  speaking  of  the  divine  and  apostolic  traditions,  it 
was  remarked  that  all  the  examples  mentioned  by  Bellar- 
mine,  such  as  Infant  Baptism,  &c.,  are  received,  though  for 
different  reasons,  by  our  communion.  Infant  Baptism  is 
fairly  inferred  from  the  Scriptures  ;  and  we  quote  the  Fa- 
thers on  this  subject,  not  as  independent  of  the  Bible,  but  as 
witnesses  to  the  fact  that  our  interpretation  of  the  Scripture 
is  that  traditive  interpretation  of  which  Chillingworth  speaks, 
and  which  we  acknowledge  as  the  consentient  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  The  change  from  the  Jewishy 
and  the  observance  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  is  clearly  indi- 
cated in  the  Bible ;  and  we  show  that  our  interpretation  is 
the  ancient  and  catholic  interpretation,  by  the  uniform  usage 
of  the  Church  from  Apostolic  times.  I  might  go  on  to  speak 
of  the  Lenten-fast,  the  Ember-days  at  the  four  seasons,  and 
other  arragements  of  our  Prayer-book,  as  practices  so  uni- 
versal and  of  such  high  antiquity  that  we   cannot  doubt  of 

*  Chillingw.  Works,  fol.  Lond.  1742,  ch.  vi.  56. 
t  Works,  ut  sup.  ch.  ii.  89. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


39 


their  catholicity.  But  practices  of  the  Church  are  a  tradi- 
tive testimony  addressed  to  the  bodily  senses,  and  "  handed 
down"  with  a  precision  which  cannot  possibly  belong  to 
unwritten  doctrines.  Occasion  to  speak  of  this  more  at 
large  will  hereafter  occur.  The  object  of  the  present  re- 
marks is  to  show  that  they  do  not  properly  belong  to  the 
same  category  with  Infant  Baptism  and  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, which,  in  the  language  of  the  Sixth  Article,  may  be 
proved  by  the  Scriptures. 

The  distinction  between  the  Tradition  of  Doctrines  and 
the  Tradition  of  Ceremonies  must  be  carefully  noted,  if  we 
would  avoid  that  confusion  which  controversial  writers  and 
unreflecting  readers  are  so  apt  to  make.  Our  Sixth  Article 
rejects  all  Doctrines  which  are  not  founded  upon  the  Bible ; 
our  Thirty -fourth  Article  does  not  reject  all  ceremonies^  but 
requires  that  they  be  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God  and 
that  they  tend  to  edification.  We  must  in  like  manner  care- 
fully note  the  distinction  between  the  Tradition  of  Doctrine, 
and  the  Tradition  of  Testimony.  We  may  admit,  as  we 
have  admitted  in  our  Twentieth  Article,  that  the  Church  is 
"  a  witness  and  a  keeper  of  Holy  Writ,"  without  any  ad- 
mission  of  doctrine  not  contained  in  Holy  Writ.  And  so 
with  regard  to  traditive  Interpretation,  that  which  is  inter- 
preted mxisX  first  he  found  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  what  is  not 
so  found  there,  we  reject  as  a  rule  of  faith.  But  as  to  the 
sense  in  which  Scripture  is  to  be  understood,  the  consentient 
testimony  of  the  Universal  Church,  according  to  the  rule  of 
Vincent  of  Lerins,  is  only  the  reason  and  learning  of  the 
whole  Church  as  applied  to  a  particular  case. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 

Dr.  Milner  commences  his  attack  upon  the  Bible  as  the 
sole  rule  of  faith,  by  asserting  that  "  if  Christ  had  intended 
that  all  mankind  should  learn  his  religion  from  a  book, 
namely  the  New  Testament,  he  himself  would  have  written 


40 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


that  book."*  This  is  about  as  wise  a  remark  as  that  of  the 
unbeliever  mentioned  by  Paley,  that  "  if  God  had  given  a 
revelation,  he  would  have  written  it  in  the  skies. "f  We  are 
willing  to  believe  that  our  blessed  Lord  knew  better  than  Dr. 
Milner  what  it  was  proper  for  Him  to  do,  when  He  told  his 
disciples  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost  should  bring  all  things  to 
their  remembrance  whatsoever  He  had  said  unto  them." 
The  learned  polemic  might  as  well  say  that  if  our  Lord  had 
meant  that  all  men  should  enter  his  Church,  he  would  have 
remained  on  earth  to  found  it. — Why  did  Dr.  Milner  speak 
of  the  New  Testament  only  ?  Is  not  the  Gospel  taught  in 
the  Old  Testament  ?  And  did  not  Christ  constantly  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures,  meaning  of  course  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  ?  Such  remarks  can  operate  only  upon  un- 
reflecting and  vulgar  minds. 

And  with  regard  to  the  general  **  obligation  of  learning  to 
read  the  Bible,"  is  there  no  way  of  learning  religion  from  a 
book,  even  by  those  who  cannot  read  ?  I  could  have  told  him, 
even  at  the  moment  in  which  his  "  End  of  Religious  Contro- 
versy "  was  first  passing  through  the  press,  of  a  poor  woman 
who  had  learned  her  religion  by  going  constantly  to  Church, 
and  hearing  the  Ambassadors  of  Christ  read  the  Bible. 
"  Faith,"  says  the  Apostle,  *'  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing 
by  the  word  of  God. "J  "  Moses  of  old  time,"  said  St.  James, 
"  hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the 
synagogues  every  Sabbath  day."§  The  poor  aged  woman 
of  whom  I  speak  was  visited  by  me  in  her  last  illness.  She 
quoted  the  Scriptures  so  fluently,  and  applied  them  so  cor- 
rectly and  understandingly,  that  the  idea  of  her  not  knowing 
how  to  read  never  occurred  to  me.  I  said,  "  Give  me  your 
Bible,  and  I  will  mark  some  passages  for  your  meditation 
when  I  am  absent."  "  Alas,  sir  !  "  she  replied,  "  I  cannot 
read!" — "Cannot  read!"  I  exclaimed  ;  "how  did  you  get 
such  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible?" — "  By  attending  Church, 
sir,  and  hearing  the  Bible  read.  My  memory,  thank  God, 
is  good  ;  and  I  have  repeated  what  I  have  heard  till  I  had 
got  it  by  heart." — Such  would  have  been  the  general  result, 
if  the  noble  design  of  the  English  Reformers  had  been  car- 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


41 


ried  out.     Their  design  was,  that  not  priests  merely,  but  the 
people  in  general  should  attend  morning  and  evening  prayer 
in  their  parish  churches  every  day  in  the  year.     Thus  they 
would  have  repeated  the  whole  book  of  Psalms  every  month, 
and  heard   the  whole  of  the  Bible  read — the  Old  Testament 
once,  and  the  New  Testament  three  times  a  year.     What 
would  have  been  the  result,  if  every  inhabitant  in  the  vast 
empire  of  Great  Britain,  and  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
had  thus  heard,  in  his  own  tongue,  the  wonderful  works  of 
God  ?     Consider  how  intimately  they  would  have  known  the 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make   us  wise  unto  salvation ! 
Every  one  knows  that  good  reading  is  a  continual  comment. 
The  Christian  Priest,  whose  "  lips  should  keep  knowledge,"* 
would  read  with  such  just  intonation  and  emphasis,  that  the 
ignorant  would    understand  the   Bible  better  than  if   they 
merely  read  it  alone  by  themselves.     Thus  the  people  would 
have  sought  the  law  at  the  priest's  mouth.     I  speak  not  to 
disparage  the  learning  how  to  read.     The  more  all  useful 
learning  is  extended,  the  better.     But  even  supposing  any 
person  so  ignorant,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  could  not  learn 
their  religion  from  a  book.     The  greatest  scholar  may  often 
have  thoughts  suggested  to  his  soul  by  hearing  the  word  of 
God  read  in   public  worship.     I  repeat  it  therefore,  if  the 
noble  design  of  the  Church  of  England  had  not  been  thwart- 
ed by  a  perverse  opposition   proceeding  first  from  English 
members  of  the  Roman  Communion,  and  afterwards  secretly 
fomented  by  them  among   the  Puritans,  (Dr.  Milner  well 
knows   how,)    not    a  being    speaking    the    English   tongue 
would  have   failed  to  hear,  every  day  of  his  life,  four  chap- 
ters of  the  Bible  read  in  the  daily  ministrations  of  morning 
and  evening  worship.     And  even  in  the  present  imperfect 
statv?  of  our  practice,  and  the  limited  influence  of  our  wor- 
ship.  I  might   appeal  to  the  experience  of  every  one  who, 
like  the  poor  woman  I  have  mentioned,  diligently  and  faith- 
fully attends  the  sanctuary,  whether  it  is  possible  that  such 
can*  be  ignorant  of  God's  Holy  Word. 

Again,  he  speaks  in  a  tone  of  flippant  irreverence  of  our 
Saviour's  acting  without  common  sense,  if  He  did  not  ap- 
point a  judge  of  controversies.f     Dr.    Milner  well  knew 


*  Letter  VIII. 
t  Rom.  X.  17. 


t  Evidences,  part  ii.  ch.  vi. 
§  Acts  XV.  21. 


*  Mai.  ii.  7. 


t  Letter  VIII.  ii. 


42 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


43 


thai  our  Twentieth  Article  speaks  of  the  Church  as  having 
"  authority    in    controversies    of   faith."      What  is  meant 
by  that  expression  will   be  more   properly  considered   here- 
after.    It  is  mentioned  here  only   to  show   his  unfairness. 
Whatever  may  be  thought   by  those  who  hold   the   rule  of 
private  interpretation  in  its  most  extensive  sense,  it  is  a  cal- 
umny to  impute  such  a  rule  to  the  Churches  of  the  English 
Communion.     "  The  Church  hath  power,"  says  the  Article, 
"  to  decree   rites  or  ceremonies,  and   authority  in  controver- 
sies of  faith;  and  yet,"  it  cautiously  adds,  "it  is  not  lawful 
for  the  Church  to  ordain  any  thing  that  is  contrary  to  God's 
Word  written."*     The  meaning  of  this  rule  is  fully  shown 
in  the  Prayer-book  which  the  Church   of  England,  and  the 
Churches  in  her  Communion,  have  set  forth  as  containing  the 
Catholic  sense  of  the  Scriptures — the  Catholic  faith  as  it  was 
held  previous  to  the  schisms  of  the   fifth  and   subsequent 
centuries.     Equally  remote  from  a  persecuting  or  a  latitu- 
dinarian  spirit,  the  Churches  of  the  English  Communion 
require  conformity  to  the  Prayer-book  as  essential  to  "  unity 
of  spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace." 

When,  therefore.  Dr.  Milnerf  enters  into  a  long  statement 
of  the  dangers  arising  from  private  interpretation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ;  when  he  dilates  upon  the  extravagances  of 
Luther,  Carlostad,  Zuinglius,  CEcolampadius,  and  Muncer ; 
when  he  attempts  to  show  that  the  unbounded  license  of 
explaining  Scripture,  has  led  to  tumults,  persecution,  blood- 
shed, anarchy,  and  even  infidelity— all  the  miseries  of  the 
English  rebellion,  and  all  the  horrors  of  the  French  revolu- 
tion ;  we  do  not  feel  ourselves  called  upon  to  enter  the  lists 
with  him,  or  to  vindicate  what  we,  as  well  as  he,  should 
equally  disapprove  and  condemn.  If  he  could  prove  all 
that  he  asserts,  it  would  not  affect  us,  unless  he  could  show 
that  the  English  Reformation  contained  the  seeds  of  all  these 
enormities.  Against  us,  his  argument,  if  argument  it  may 
be  called,  has  no  more  force  than  the  sophistry  which  would 
impute  to  the  Christian  religion  the  crimes  which  have  been 
perpetrated  in  its  name.  The  very  same  sort  of  argument 
would  convict  the  Roman  Communion  in  general,  of  all  the 
horrors  of  the  Inquisition,  or  of  the  perfidious  massacre  of 


Art.  XX.  1562. 


t  Letter  VIII.  iii. 


St.  Bartholomew.     Oh,  with  what  stern  recrimination  could 
I  unfold,  from  published  documents  of  unquestioned  accuracy, 
the  monstrous  wickedness  of  many  dignitaries  of  the  French 
Church,  during  the  Regency  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans  and 
the  reign  of  Louis  XV  !     These  were   among  the  principal 
causes  which  led  to  infidelity,  and  the  horrors  of  revolution, 
and  not  the  writings  of  English  Deists  imported  into  France. 
But  I  forbear  ;   for  the  cause  of  truth  needs  no  support  from 
such  pitiable  attempts  to  create  prejudice  against  a  religion 
from  the  infirmities,  the  follies,  and  the  wickedness  of  any  of 
its  professors.     To  detect  every  instance  of  this  unfairness 
in  Dr.  Milner's  writings  would  extend  this  reply  to  an  im- 
measurable length.     I   shall  endeavour,  therefore,  to  select 
the  strong  points  of  controversy,  and  leave  smaller  things  to 
fall  of  course. 

If  Mr.  James  Brown  and  his  Protestant  friends  were  not 
completely  puzzled  by  the  eighth  letter,  it  was  not  Dr.  Mil- 
ner's fault  if  they  were  not  left  by  the  ninth  in  a  labyrinth 
of  doubt.  His  great  object  was  to  disparage  the  Bible  as  the 
rule  of  faith  ;  and  this  he  did  by  asking  a  series  of  ques- 
tions which  he  knew  would,  to  uninformed  minds,  be  ex- 
tremely embarrassing  : 

First.  How  do  you  know,  he  says,  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture ? 

Secondly.  Supposing  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures established,  how  do  you  know  that  the  copies  of 
them  translated  and  printed  in  your  Bible  are  au- 

thentic  ? 

Thirdly.  Admitting  that  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek 
are  canonical  and  authentic,  how  do  you  kn^w  that 
yours  is  a  faithful  translation  ? 

Fourthly.  Admitting,  still  further,  that  your  Bible  is  ca- 
nonical, authentic  and  faithful,  what  security  have 
you  that  you  understand  it  rightly  ?  and 

Fifthly.  How,  among  so  many  doubts  and  controversies, 
can  you  have  any  certain  and  full  persuasion,  unless 
you  come  to  the  Catholic  Church,  having  the  tradition 
of  all  ages,  and  the  spirit  of  all  truth  ? 


I  1 

I I 


44 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


The  very  arrangement  of  these  interrogatories  shows  the 
art  of  the  polemic.  It  is  a  series  of  Socratic  questions,  the 
last  of  which  contains  the  real  object,  at  which  the  querist  is 
aiming. 

Our  general  answer  to  all  these  questions  is,  We  know 
just  as  well  as  you  know  ;  and  we  are  a  little  more  honest 
than  you,  because  we  clearly  define  our  terms,  and  never 
palter  with  a  double  sense.  Let  us  consider  these  questions 
as  briefly  as  we  can. 

§  1.   The  Canon, 

The  decree  of  the  Fourth  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
enumerates  alt  the  Books  of  tlie  Old  and  New  Testament  as 
received  in  the  Eornan  Communion.  The  Sixth  Article  of 
the  London  Synod,  of  1562,  does  the  same  as  to  the  Books 
received  in  the  English  Communion.  Both  communions 
agree  as  to  the  Bocks  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  in  the  Old, 
the  Roman  Communion  follows  the  Greek  and  Latin  Canon, 
while  the  English  receive  only  the  Hebrew  Canon.  By  the 
term  Canon  is  meant  a  rule  of  faith.  Consequently  Canonical 
Scriptures  are  those  which  are  to  be  appealed  to  as  a  rule  of 
faith.  The  Council  of  Trent  names  the  Books  of  Tobit, 
Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  and  the  first  and 
second  books  of  Maccabees,  and  includes  in  the  books  of 
Esther  and  Daniel,  those  parts  which  by  the  Synod  of  Lon- 
don were  called  "  the  rest  of  the  book  of  Esther,  the  Song  of 
the  Three  Children,  the  Story  of  Susannah,  and  that  of  Bel 
and  the  Dragon."— (Art.  vi.)  The  Council  of  Trent  does 
not  name  the  third  and  fourth  Books  of  Esdras,  and  the  Praver 
of  Manasses,  among  its  sacred  and  canonical  books  ;  and 
therefore  so  far  agrees  with  the  Synod  o^  London.  But 
these  excepted,  the  Tridcntine  Synod  pronounces  all  accursed 
who  do  not  receive  with  equal  reverence  and  veneration,  as 
sacred  and  canonical,  the  above-mentioned  seven  books,  to- 
gether with  those  parts  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  which  the 
Synod  of  London,  though  it  does  not  curse  those  who  think 
otherwise,  pronounces  not  to  be  canonical.  The  question 
then  as  to  canonical  scriptures,  or  scriptures  to  be  ad- 
duced as  a  rule  of  faith,  is  clearly  reduced  to  this.  Whether 
the  seven  books  named,  and  the  parts  of  Esther  and  Daniel, 


I 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


45 


as  contained  in  the  Greek  Septuagint,  and  the  old  Latin 
Vulgate,  are  or  are  not  canonical?  Now  the  plain  and  sim- 
ple fact  that  they  do  not  exist  in  the  Hebrew,  like  the  books 
enumerated  equally  by  the  Councils  of  Trent  and  London, 
but  only  in  a  Greek  original,  is,  to  plain  and  simple  men,  a 
sufficient  prima  facie  evidence  that  they  are  not  canonical. 
But  how  great  will  be  the  surprise  of  such  men  when  they 
learn  that  the  very  writers  who  are  supposed  to  be  among 
the  conveyers  of  divine  and  apostolical  traditions,  do  them- 
selves furnish  testimony  that  these  books  are  not  canonical! 
Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  as  to  the 
text  of  Scripture,  says :  "  The  Hebrews  make  no  use  of 
Tobit  or  Judith  ;  for  they  do  not  hold  them  even  among 
apocryphal  books  written  in  Hebrew,  as  we  have  by  inquiry 
learned  from  themselves."*  That  the  Book  of  Baruch  had 
an  oriental  origin  must  be  mere  conjecture ;  for  St.  Jerome, 
in  his  preface  to  Jeremiah,  says :  "  We  have  omitted  the 
Book  of  Baruch,  his  scribe,  which  among  the  Hebrews  is 
neither  read  nor  acknowledged."!  Of  the  Book  of  Wisdom, 
says  St.  Jerome,  "  It  is  nowhere  to  be  found  among  the 
Hebrews,  and  its  very  style  breathes  of  Grecian  idioms. "J 
Of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  St.  Jerome  says :  "  Among  the 
Hebrews,  you  have  neither  the  History  of  Susannah,  nor  the 
Song  of  the  Three  Children,  nor  the  fables  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon. "§  In  his  preface  to  the  Book  of  Esther,  he  says: 
"  Taking  the  Hebrew  book  of  Esther,  examine  my  transla- 
tion word  for  word  ;  so  as  to  acknowledge  that  I  have 
not  increased  it  by  any  additions,  but  have  simply  and  with 
faithful  testimony,  translated  the  Hebrew  history  into  the 
Latin  tongue,  as  it  is  held  in  the  Hebrew  language. "||  Ec- 
clesiasticus was  written  by  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  translated  by  his  grandson  into  Greek  in  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II.  That  reign  extended  from 
B.  c.  147  to  B.  c.  118.     The  date  of  the  Greek  Translation 


*  Ep.  ad  Africanum,  cap.  13,  torn,  i.  p.  26,     Ed.  Benedict. 

t  Apud  Hebraeos,  nee  legitur,  nee  habetur.     Torn.  i.  p.  554.     Ed. 
Benedict. 

X  Ipse  stylus  Graecam  eloquentiam  redolet.     lb.  p.  938. 

§  lb.  p.  990. 

II  Sicut  in  Hebraeo  habetur,  historiam  Hebraicam  Latinae  linguae  tra- 
didisse.    lb.  p.  1138. 

3* 


5;. 


46 


REPLY   TO   MILNER's  END  OF   CONTROVERSY. 


by  the  grandson  cannot  therefore  be  placed  higher  than  the 
heginningf  and  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  about  the 
middle  of  that  reign.  The  grandson  says  that  his  grand- 
father's work  was  written  in  Hebrew.  He  must  mean  of 
course  the  corrupt  Hebrew  spoken  from  350  to  400  years 
after  the  Captivity,  or  what  is  commonly  called  the  Syro- 
Chaldaic,  the  language  which  St.  Paul  spake,  as  mentioned 
in  Acts  xxii.  2. 

It  is  probable  that  the  first  book  of  Maccabees  was  writ- 
ten in  the  same  language  ;  for  it  records  the  events  of  38 
years,  ending  139  years  before  the  Christian  era,  and 
St.  Jerome  says  that  he  had  seen  the  original  in  Hebrew, 
that  is,  in  Chaldee.*  With  regard  to  the  second  book  of 
Maccabees,  St.  Jerome  says,  "  the  Second  is  Greek ;  which 
can  be  proved  from  its  very  phraseology. f 

Let  us  now  trace  the  origin  of  the  Greek  Translation  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  fact  so  well  known  as  to  be  be- 
yond dispute,  that  the  five  books  of  Moses  were  translated  in 
Egypt  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  which  began 
B.  c.  285  and  ended  b.  c.  248.  The  Jews,  who  were  very 
numerous  in  Alexandria,  spoke  the  Greek  language ;  and 
thus  the  version,  not  only  of  the  Law,  but  of  the  Prophets  and 
other  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon,  came  by  degrees  into 
general  use.:]:  Learned  men  have  discovered  so  many  dif- 
ferences in  the  style  and  quality  of  the  whole,  as  clearly 
show  that  the  five  books  of  Moses  were  first  translated,  and 
the  rest  subsequently,  at  various  times  and  by  ditferent 
writers.  The  subscription  annexed  to  the  version  of  Esther 
states  that  it  was  finished  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ptolemy 
Philometer,  b.  c.  178.  It  is  evident  therefore  that  the  Greek 
Canon  was  formed  in  Egypt,  not  at  once,  but  by  degrees  ; 
not  from  a  single  manuscript  copy  in  the  original  Hebrew, 
transmitted  by  the  authority  of  the  High  Priest  to  king 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  but  from  various  manuscripts  of 
uncertain  authority,  in  the  course  of  at  least  a  century.  It 
is  no  less  evident  that  the  books  in  controversy  between  the 
Roman  and  English  communions,  were  added  in  Egypt.     It 


*  Prolog,  galeat.  sive  praef.  in  Lib.  Regum. 

t  Quod  ex  ipsa  quoque   phrasi  probari  potest. 


Tom.   i.   p.  322. 
Marsh;  Comp.  View,  pp.  90-93.     Note. 

X  For  an  account  of  this  the  reader  can  consult  Joseph.  Ant.  lib.  zii. 
0.2. 


f 


4^ 
1 


'i 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


47 


was  natural  that  Jews  dwelling  in  a  foreign  land  should  pre- 
serve with  great  care  any  documents  relating  to  the  history 
and  theology  of  their  nation ;  and  this  without  considering  or 
even  imagining  that  they  had  equal  claims  to  reverence  with 
the  inspired  writings.  From  the  building  of  the  second 
temple,  to  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist  there  is  a  great 
chasm  in  the  contemporary  Jewish  History  and  Literature. 
This  the  Jews,  living  in  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemies,  sensibly 
felt ;  but  what  evidence  is  there  that  they  acknowledged  the 
inspiration  of  the  books  they  collected  ?  Is  there  any  thing 
in  Josephus,  or  in  Philo,  the  Alexandrian  Jew,  from  which 
such  evidence  can  be  drawn?  Not  a  word.  We  know 
from  Origen,  who  was  himself  of  Alexandria,  and  who  spent 
the  greater  part  of  his  laborious  life  in.  correcting  the  errors 
and  interpolations  of  the  Greek  version,  that  the  books  of 
Tobit  and  Judith  were  neither  used  by  the  Jews,  (he  must 
of  course  mean  the  Jews  of  Syria,)  nor  admitted  by  them 
even  amon^r  their  Apocryphal  books  or  books  of  doubtful 
origin.*  As  for  Josephus,  his  testimony  is  as  full  as  words 
can  be :  "  We  have  not  myriads  of  Books  discordant  and 
contradicting  each  other,  but  only  twenty-two  which  com- 
prehend the  history  of  all  former  ages,  and  are  justly  regard- 
ed as  divine.  Of*them  five  belong  to  Moses,  containing  his 
laws  and  the  traditions  of  the  origin  of  mankind  till  his 
death.  This  interval  of  time  from  the  death  of  Moses  till 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  king  of  Persia,  who  reigned  after 
Xerxes,  the  prophets,  who  were  after  Moses,  wrote  down 
what  was  done  in  their  times  in  thirteen  books.  The  re- 
maining four  books  contain  hymns  to  God,  and  precepts  for 
the  conduct  of  human  life."  He  then  adds,  "  It  is  true  our 
history  hath  been  written  since  Artaxerxes,  very  particularly, 
but  hath  not  been  esteemed  of  the  like  authority  with  the  former 
by  our  forefathers,  because  there  hath  not  been  an  exact  succes- 
sion of  prophets  since  that  /«me."f 

Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  the  Persian  king  spoken  of  by 
Josephus,  reigned  from  b.  c.  465  to  b.  c.  425  ;  and  it  was 
in  his  reign  that  Malachi,  the  last  of  the  prophets  wrote,  and 
the  transactions  took  place  recorded  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and 

*  Origen,  ut  sup.  Op.,  tom.i.  p.  26,  2d  ed.  Bened. 
t  Joseph,  contr.  Apion,lib.  i.  c.  8. 


48 


REPLY   TO   milker's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


i 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


49 


Nehemiah,  or  Esdras  I.  and  II.,  and  Esther.  Now  let  the  read- 
er examine  the  Hebrew  Canon  in  the  reception  of  which  the 
Roman  and  the  English  connmunions  agree,  and  he  will  find 
that  they  are  included  in  the  twenty-two  books  mentioned 
by  Josephus.* 

It  is  precisely  those  written  since  Artaxerxes,  which  Jo- 
seph us  says  have  not  been  esteemed  of  like  authority  with  the 
former,  concerning  which  the  two  communions  differ. 

But,  says  Dr.  Milner,  you  cannot  prove  what  i3  Scripture 
by  Scripture,  and  then  he  refers  to  Ilooker  as  showing,  and 
Chillingworth  as  allowing,  that  Scripture  "  cannot  bear  testi- 
mony to  itself."  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Dr.  Milner  had 
never  read  Hooker;  for  he  refers  to  the  wrong  place.  Chil- 
lingworth  has  quoted  two  passages  and  referred  to  a  third 
from  Hooker  :  Lib.  i.  Sect.  14,  Lib.  ii.  Sect.  4,  and  Lib  iii. 
Sect.  8.  Dr.  Milner  takes  the  sentiment  of  the  first,  does  not 
notice  the  second,  and  in  his  margin  refers  only  to  the  third. 
Hooker  arguing  against  the  Puritans  says  (Lib.  i.  §  14),  "  It 
may  be — and  oftentimes  hath  been  demanded,  how  the  books 
of  holy  Scripture  contain  in  them  all  necessary  things,  when 
of  things  necessary  the  very  chief  is  to  know  what  books  we 
are  to  esteem  holy  ;  which  point  is  confessed  impossible  for 
the  Scripture  itself  to  teach."  Chillingworth  quotes  this,  and 
then  adds  :  "  And  this  he  (Ilooker)  proveth  by  the  same  ar- 
gument which  we  (Chillingworth)  lately  used,  saying  thus 
(Eccles.  Pol.  Lib.  ii.  §  4),  '  It  is  not  the  Word  of  God°which 
doth  or  possibly  can  assure  us  that  we  do  well  to  think  it  his 
Word.  For  if  any  one  book  of  Scripture  did  give  testimony 
to  all ;  yet  still  that  Scripture  which  giveth  testimony 
[credit]  to  the  rest  would  require  another  Scripture  to  give 
credit  unto  it;  neither  could  we  [e\er]  come  unto  any  pause 
whereon  to  rest unless  besides  Scripture  there  were  some- 
thing which  might  assure  us,'  "  &c.  And  then  Chillingworth 
adds:  <'And  this  he  (Ilooker)  acknowledges  to  be  the 
Church."!    It  is  for  this  last  sentence  only  that  Chillingworth 

They  were  probably  reduced  by  him  to  twenty- two,  because  such 
is  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet  ;  at  least,  such  is  the 
explanation  given  by  St.  Jerome,  Prolog,  galeatus. 

t  Chillingworth,  Rel.  of  Protestants,  Charity  maintained  by  Catholics, 
part  i.  ch.  ii.  ^  7. 


i 


refers  to  Lib.  iii.  §  8  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity.  Now  why 
did  not  Dr.  Milner  in  taking  quotations  of  Hooker  from  Chil- 
lingworth, take  that  which  was  under  his  eye  from  Lib.  ii.  §  4, 
which  explains  Hooker's  meaning  ?  Certainly,  most  sapient 
sir,  any  single  book  of  Scripture  cannot  bear  testimony  to 
itself,  except  what  is  usually  called  internal  testimony.  But 
may  not  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament  give  external  tes- 
ti  mony  to  books  which  in  the'^order  of  time  preceded  them  ? 
and  may  not  the  New  Testament  bear  witness  to  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Old  ?  How  pitiable  are  such  attempts  to  impose 
on  the  ignorance  or  credulity  of  readers  who  cannot  or  will 
not  examine  his  authorities,  and  detect  his  misrepresentations! 

Our  blessed  Lord  bore  witness  repeatedly  to  the  divine 
origin  and  character  of  the  Hebrew  Canon ;  and  that  in  the 
way  which,  to  a  true  believer,  is  of  all  others  the  most  satis- 
factory :  that  is,  never  given  formally  as  testimony,  and  as 
if  the  fact  were  questionable,  but  in  appeals  to  that  which 
was  without  controversy.  I  select  only  a  few  instances,  and 
such  as  at  the  moment  occur  to  my  mind.  St.  John  v.  39 : 
"  Search  the  Scriptures ;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eter- 
nal life  ;  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."  lb.  v.  46  : 
"  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me  ;  for 
he  wrote  of  me."  St.  Luke  xvi.  31 :  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead."  lb.  xx.  42:  "  David  himself  saith,  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms."  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  15  :  "  When — ye  shall 
see  the  abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet."  &c.  St.  Luke  xxiv.  44 :  "  All  things  must  be 
fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  diud  in  the 
Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning  me."  lb.  v.  45: 
"  Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  might  un- 
derstand the  Scriptures."  In  this  last  passage  there  is  the 
same  threefold  division  of  the  Scriptures  mentioned  by  Jose- 
phus,  and  existing  even  to  this  day  in  the  manuscripts  and 
printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  is  therefore  on  the 
authority  of  our  Lord  Christ  himself  that  we  receive  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  "  handed  down"  to  His  time  by  the  Church 
in  every  age,  to  whom,  as  St.  Paul  says,  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God  ;  which  oracles  have  to  us  the  additional  sanc- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God. 

And  now  let  us  look  at  the  history  of  the  Latin  Transla- 


' 


50 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


I 


tion  which  the  Council  of  Trent  was  pleased  to  substitute 
for  the  Hebrew  verity.     The  Greek  Translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  was,  from  the  force  of  circumstances,  the  standard 
of  the   early  Christian   Church.     Greek  was  the   language 
most  generally  understood.     With  the  single  exception  of 
the  Syriac  Bible,  all  the  early  translations  were  made  from 
the  Septuagint ;    and   though,  as  I   have   before   remarked, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  books  not  of  Hebrew  origin 
were  ever  considered  in  the  early  Church  as  of  equal  author- 
ity with  the  Hebrew  Canon,  yet  in  the  several  translations  the 
boundary  line  between  the  two  would  easily  become  obscured. 
From   the    Greek,   various  Latin   translations   were   made, 
some  probably  as  early  as  the  second  century,  but  differing 
from  each  other,  and  all   more  or  less  inaccurate.     One  of 
them,  called  by  St.  Augustine  the  Itala,  was  preferred  to 
the  rest ;  but  even  this,  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
had  been  so  corrupted  that  a  revision  of  it  became  necessary, 
and  Damasus,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  confided  this  important 
task  to  St.  Jerome,  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew. 
The  design  was  opposed  by  St.  Augustine,  who  endeavoured 
in  vain  to  dissuade  St.  Jerome   from  undertaking:  it.     The 
revision  was  made,  but  was  lost  through  accident  or  fraud, 
and  St.  Jerome  then  made  a  new  translation,  which  ostensi- 
bly is  that  now  received  by  the  Roman  Communion.     I  say 
ostensihiy,  because  the  opposition  of  St.  Augustine  led  to  re- 
sults which  materially  atTected  it.     In  the  year  397,  at  the 
very  time  when  St.  Jerome  was  employed  in  writing  his 
new  version  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  original  Hebrew, 
the  third  Council  of  Carthage  was  held,  in  which  St.  Augus- 
tine took  a  prominent  part.     In  tlie  47th  canon  of  that  coun- 
cil it  prohibited  any  books  from  being  read  in  church  under 
the  name  of  divine  Scriptures  which  were  not  canonicaL     It 
then  gives  the  following  list  of  ca7i07j/ca/ Scriptures :  "  Genesis, 
Exodus,    Leviticus,  Numbers,    Deuteronomy,  Jesus  Nave 
[Joshua],  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books  of  Kings  [1,  2  Samuel, 
1,  2  Kings],  two  books  of  Paralipomenon   [Chronicles],  Job, 
the  Psalter  of  David, ^ue  hooks  of  Salomon^  the  books  of  the 
twelve  prophets,  Isaias,  Jeremias,  Ezechiel,  Daniel,  Tobias, 
Judith,  Esther,  two  books  of  Esdras,  two  books  of  Maccabees. 
Of  the  New  Testament,  the  four  books  of  the  Gospels,  one 
book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


51 


the  apostle,  one  of  the  same  to  the  Hebrews,  two  of  Peter 
the  apostle,  three  of  John  the  apostle,  one  of  Jude  the 
apostle,  and  one  of  James,  one  book  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
John."*  By  a  strange  blunder,  the  council  enumerated  five 
books  of  Solomon  ;  that  is,  beside  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
the  Song  of  Songs,  which  are  in  the  Hebrew  Canon,  it  pro- 
nounced to  be  his,  not  only  what  is  called  in  the  Septuagint 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  but  also  the  book  of  Jesus  the  Son 
of  Sirach,  which  was  written  800  years  after  the  death  of 
Solomon !  This  is  the  canon  which,  on  the  authority  of  a 
council  influenced  by  St.  Augustine,  and  in  direct  opposition 
to  St.  Jerome,  and  a  translation  executed  under  the  patron- 
age of  Damasus,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  fourth  century, 
the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  adopted,  and 
bound  to  be  received  under  the  penalty  of  a  curse  !  "  If  any 
one  does  not  receive,  as  sacred  and  canonical,  those  entire 
books,  with  all  their  parts,  as  they  are  accustomed  to  be  read 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  as  they  are  contained  in  the  old 
Vulgate  Latin  edition — let  him  be  accursed  !"t  Observe  well 
the  expression  Old  Vulgate  Latin.  The  term  Vetus  Editio 
Vulgata  Latina,  the  Old  Latin  Vulgate,  was  used  after  the 
publication  of  St.  Jerome's  version,  which  was  called  Editio 
J>fova  Vulgata,  the  New  Latin  Vulgate,  to  denote  that  which 
was  made  from  the  Greek  Canon.  So  that,  while  St.  Jerome's 
translation,  established  by  the  authority  of  Damasus,  is  osten- 
sibly retained  in  the  Roman  Communion,  all  those  parts 
which  St.  Jerome  rejected  as  Apocryphal,  are  brought  in 
again  on  the  authority  of  the  Old  Latin  Vulgate  f  Here  we 
may  well  leave  the  subject ;  since  in  this  controversy  the 
churches  of  the  English  Communion  have  on  their  side 
Damasus,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  learned  St.  Jerome, 
of  the  fourth  century ;  while  the  churches  of  the  Roman 
Communion  are  influenced  by  the  prejudices  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, who  knew  nothing  of  Hebrew,  and,  according  to  Dr. 
Milner,  by  a  decretal  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  in  the  fifth  century  ! 
I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  enter  into  all  the  little  arts 
of  controversy  which  Dr.  Milner  employed  to  perplex  un- 
learned readers.  He  asks.  Why  do  you  receive  the  gospels 
of  St.  Mark  and  St.   Luke,  who  ivere  not  apostles,  and  yet 

*  Labbei  et  Cossarti  Concilia,  torn.  ii.  p.  1177.  t  P.  33,  ante. 


52 


REPLY    TO   MILNEr's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


"  reject  an  authentic  work  of  great  excellence  written  by  St. 
Barnabas,  who  was  an  apostle  /"  And  we  in  our  turn  ask, 
If  it  be  so  authentic  and  excellent,  why  did  the  Council  of 
Trent  reject  it  ?  When  an  answer  is  returned  to  this  inqui- 
ry, we  shall  be  ready  with  ours.  Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesi- 
astical History,  observes — '^  Moreover  let  that  Epistle  which 
is  reported  to  belong  to  Barnabas  be  ranked  among  the  spu- 
rious books  of  the  New  Testament.'**  Let  all  who  uphold 
Dr.  Milner  settle  his  question  by  appeal  to  the  fathers,  whom 
as  human  testimony  we  are  willing  to  receive.  Nay 
more,  we  say  with  Hooker,  "  When  we  know  the  whole 
Church  of  God  hath  that  opinion  of  the  Scripture,  we  judge 
it  even  at  the  first  an  impudent  thing  for  any  man  bred  and 
brought  up  in  the  Church  to  be  of  a  contrary  mind  without 
cause. "f 

§  2.    The  accuracy  of  the  text. 

How  do  you  know  that  your  copies  of  the  Bible  are 
authentic  ?  By  authentic  Dr.  Milner  evidently  meant  gen- 
uine ;  and  the  question  in  general  has  been  sufficiently 
answered  already.  We  prove  the  Bible  to  be  authentic,  or 
genuine,  just  as  we  prove  that  any  other  ancient  book  is  so. if 
We  are  greatly  indebted  to  the  labours  of  Kennicott  and  De 
Rossi,  Holmes  and  Parsons,  Sabatier,  Bianchini  and  Fleck, 
Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  and  Scholtz,  for  our  knowledge 
of  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin  texts. 
Various  readings,  instead  of  injuring  have  increased  to  a 
moral  demonstration  the  evidence  as  to  the  purity  of  the 
original  Bible,  and  the  general  fidelity  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  translations.  The  infidel  Collins  raised  a  great  hue 
and  cry  about  biblical  criticism  and  various  readings,  with 
precisely  the  same  object  as  that  of  Dr.  Milner,  to  unsettle 
men's  faith  in  the  Bible;  and  if  I  had  space,  I  could  copy 
whole  pages  of  Dr.  Bentley's  Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis,  that 
admirable  answer  to  Collins,  as  equally  applicable  in  the 
present  case.     But  I  forbear,  and  content  myself  with  con- 

*  Grier's  Reply  to  Milner,  p.  14.     He  enters  into  a  laboured  reply, 
which  I  do  not  think  necessary. 

t  Eccl.  Pol.,  book  iU.  ^  b.  %  See  before,  p.  37. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


53 


sidering  the  passage  in  Psalm  xiv.,  and  the  disputed  text, 
1  John,  v.  7,  which  our  author  adduces  to  prove  two  opposite 
charges  against  the  authorized  text  in  the  English  transla- 
tion. 

"  Look,"  says  he,  "  at  Psalm  xiv.,  as  it  occurs  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  to  which  your  clergy  swear  their  'con- 
sent and  assent ;'  then  look  at  the  same  Psalm  in  your  Bible  : 
you  will  find  four  whole  verses  in  the  former,  which  are  left 
out  of  the  latter!  What  will  you  here  say,  dear  sir?  You 
must  say  that  your  Church  has  added  to,  or  else  that  she  has 
taken  away  from  the  words  of  this  prophecy  .'"*  The  words 
he  italicised  are  from  Rev.  xxii.  19,  "  If  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall 
take  away  his  part  out  of  the  hook  of  life^^^  &;c.  Imagine  the 
delight  with  which  the  cunning  polemic  thought  he  had 
tossed  the  Church  of  England  on  the  horns  of  this  dilemma  ! 
But  if  I  had  been  at  his  elbow,  as  he  read  it  aloud  and 
chuckled,  I  should  have  said,  fair  and  softly,  good  sir !  Do 
not  magnify  the  evil,  nor  shift  the  responsibility.  The  inter- 
polated verses  are  three  not  four  ;  and  we  are  indebted  for 
them  to  your  own  infallible  Church  ! 

Dr.  Grier  answered  Dr.  Milner  gravely  and  elaborately, 
and  much  at  length,  as  if  he  was  ignorant  of  the  truth,  and 
only  needed  to  be  set  right.  But  the  answer  should  be  di- 
rected, not  to  Dr.  Milner  and  his  learned  brethren,  but  to  the 
purpose  at  which  Dr.  Milner  aimed,  the  unsettling  Mr.  James 
Brown's  confidence  in  the  honesty  and  consistency  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Let  me  therefore  endeavour  to  give  a 
plain  statement  of  facts,  and  then  condense  the  argument. 

The  Psalm  which  in  the  Hebrew  canon  is  numbered  14, 
but  in  the  Septuagint  and  Latin  Vulgate  13,  has  only  seven 
verses.  The  three  interpolated  verses  occur  between  the 
third  and  fourth  ;  but  as  in  the  Prayer-book  the  first  Hebrew 
verse  is  divided  and  numbered  one  and  two,  the  third  is 
numbered  four,  and  the  fourth  eight,  and  the  three  interpo- 
lated verses  five,  six,  and  seven.  This  interpolation  seems 
to  have  been  originally  a  marginal  note,  occasioned  by  the 
belief  that  St.  Paul  quoted  this  Psalm  in  Romans  iii.  10-18. 
For  in  the  celebrated  Vatican  Manuscript,  one  of  the  oldest 


•  Letter  IX.  sect.  2. 


54 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


extant,  these  verses  are  written  in  the  margin  with  this 
note:  "These  are  placed  nowhere  in  the  Psalms;  whence, 
therefore,  the  Apostle  took  them,  must  be  a  subject  of  inqui- 
ry."* The  annotator  was  in  part  mistaken.  St.  Paul's 
quotation,  Rom.  iii.  10-12,  is  an  abridgment  of  the  Hebrew 
Psalm  xiv.  1-3 ;  Rom.  iii.  13  is  from  Psalm  v.  9,  and  Psalm 
cxl.  3  ;f  Rom.  iii.  14  is  from  Psalm  x.  7;  Rom.  iii.  15-17 
is  from  Isaiah  lix.  7,  8 ;  Rom.  iii.  18  is  from  Psalm  xxxvi.  1, 
or,  Gr.  and  Lat.,  xxxv.  l.J  These  three  verses,  Psalm  xiv. 
5,  6,  7,  of  the  version  in  the  Prayer-book,  are  therefore 
words  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  consequently  the  use  of  them 
is  not  adding  to  the  Bible,  nor  does  the  taking  them  away,  in 
translating  according  to  the  Hebrew  canon,  subject  -the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  Churches  of  her  communion,  to 
the  awful  malediction  in  the  Apocalypse. 

Having  stated  the  real  fact  with  regard  to  the  interpo- 
lation, let  us  proceed  now  to  inquire  by  wliotn  it  was  occa- 
sioned. 

In  the  year  1586  appeared  at  Rome  the  printed  edition  of 
the  Greek  Septuagint,  professing  to  be  an  exact  copy  of  the 
celebrated  Vatican  Manuscript  of  which  we  have  spoken. 
But  instead  of  placing  the  three  interpolated  verses  in  the 
margin,  together  with  the  note  of  the  annotator,  which  clear- 
ly showed  that  they  did  not  belong  even  to  the  Greek  text, 
the  Roman  editors  suppressed  the  note  entirely,  and  inserted 
the  three  verses  in  the  text  !  Unsuspicious  of  ^\^\s  fraud,  the 
learned  world  received  the  Vatican  text  as  the  true  text  of 
the  Septuagint. 

By  the  providence  of  God,  the  injured  Cyril  Lucar,  the 
Greek  Patriarch,  first  of  Alexandria  and  afterwards  of  Con- 
stantinople, whose  life  was  a  sacrifice  to  Jesuitical  intrigues, 
sent,  in  1628,  to  King  Charles  I.  of  England,  that  famous 
Alexandrian  manuscript  which  is  now  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum, and  a  fac-simile  of  which  has  been  so  munificently 
published  by  the  British  government.  The  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  that  manuscript,  is  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  than 
that  of  the  Vatican  edition  printed  at  Rome ;  and  in  particu- 

*  Montfaucon,  Origenis  Hexapla,  torn.  i.  p.  492. 
t  Gr.  and  Lat.  Ps.  cxxxix.  3. 

t  See  this  admirably  well  proved  by  Dr.  Th.  Hartwell  Home  in  his 
Introduction.     Tables  of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


55 


!».. 


f 


lar,  it  does  not  contain  in  Psalm  xiv.  [xiii.]  the  three  inter- 
polated  verses.  But  this  was  not  generally  known  until  the 
learned  Dr.  Grabe  first  published  it  in  1707.  There  is, 
therefore,  every  reason  to  believe  that  these  verses  did  not 
belong  to  the  ancient  Greek  version,  but  were  at  an  early 
period  written  by  some  one  in  the  margin,  from  the  third 
chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  under  the  mis- 
taken impression  that  he  had  quoted  them  from  the  four- 
teenth [13th]  Psalm. 

It  has  been  already  remarked  that  interpolations  are 
more  easily  made  in  Versions  than  in  Originals.  The  Old 
Latin  Vulgate  was  made  from  the  Greek ;  and  tJiere  the 
three  verses  were  inserted  as  a  part  of  the  text.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  having  decreed  that  "  the  Old  Vulgate  edition 
was  authenticj'^  and  that  "  no  one  should  dare  or  presume, 
on  any  pretext  whatever,  to  reject  it,"  the  editors  of  the 
Vatican  Greek  text  were  bound  under  the  curse  of  the 
Council  to  commit  the  fraud  of  which  they  were  guilty,  by 
making  the  Greek  text  conform  to  that  old  Latin  translation 
which  was  now  elevated  to  the  rank  of  the  original  Scrip- 
tures. 

Contrast  with  such  conduct  the  honesty  of  the  English 
Translators.  In  the  first  English  Bible  authorized  to  be  read 
in  Churches,  published  by  Archbishop  Cranmer  in  1539-40, 
the  three  verses  interpolated  in  the  fourteenth  Psalm,  are 
printed  in  smaller  letters  than  the  rest,  to  denote  that  they 
were  not  in  the  Hebrew.  From  this  Bible  the  Psalter  was 
inserted  in  1549  in  the  first  Prayer-book  of  King  Edward 
VI.,  and  has  ever  since  been  continued.  The  publication  of 
the  Vatican  Septuagint  in  1586  seemed  to  prove  that  they 
were  in  the  Greek  as  well  as  in  the  Latin,  and  added  force 
to  the  existing  reasons  for  retaining  the  old  version.  When 
St.  Jerome  wrote  his  new  version,  it  was  thought  best  to  re- 
tain the  old  in  the  services  of  the  Church,  because  it  was 
familiar  to  the  people,  and  they  were  attached  to  it.  The 
same  reason  applied  with  tenfold  more  force  to  the  old  Eng- 
lish version  ;  for  learned  critics,  even  at  this  day,  consider 
it  on  the  whole  as  preferable  to  the  new.  Its  Anglo-Saxon 
purity,  the  simplicity  of  its  diction,  and  the  mellifluous 
beauty  of  its  style,  are  very  captivating.  And  even  when 
it  was  found  that  the  three  verses  in  question  were  supported 


56 


REPLY   TO    MILNER^S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


only  by  the  Old  Latin  Vulgate,  still  as  they  were  genuine 
expressions  of  Holy  Writ,  they  did  not  seem  inappropriate 
as  forming  a  part  of  divine  worship.  We  cannot  but  be  in- 
dignant at  the  matchless  effrontery  which  would  exalt 
this  matter  into  a  charge  of  guilt  upon  the  English 
Church,  of  adding  to,  or  taking  from  the  word  of  God, 
when  the  writer,  if  he  knew  the  facts  of  the  case,  ought 
rather  to  have  blushed  for  the  Roman  dishonesty  which 
occasioned  it. 

Dr.  Milner  is  still  more  unfortunate  when  he  says  in  his 
note  to  this  part  of  Letter  IX.,  "  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  has 
published  his  conviction  that  the  most  important  passage  in 
the  New  Testament,  1  John  v.  "7,  for  establishing  the  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ,  *  is  spurious.'  "  "  There  is  no  doubt,"  he 
says,  "  as  the  verses  in  Psalm  xiv.  are  quoted  by  St. 
Paul,  Rom.  iii.  13,  &c.,  but  the  common  Bible  is  defective 
in  this  passage  ;"  and  then,  that  he  may  cut  with  a  two-edged 
sword,  he  brings  forward  Bishop  Tomline  as  saying  that  it 
contains  a  spurious  verse,  and  that  verse  the  most  important 
in  the  New  Testament  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ! 
In  talking  about  biblical  criticism  and  various  readings  as 
rendering  the  text  of  the  Bible  uncertain,  he  has  played  into 
the  hands  of  the  Infidel ;  and  now,  by  calling  1  John  v.  7 
the  most  important  of  all  texts  to  prove  the  divinity  of  our 
blessed  Lord,  he  plays  into  the  hands  of  the  Socinian ! 

Dr.  Grier  was  embarrassed  in  his  reply  by  personal 
considerations  which  cannot  influence  the  present  writer. 
The  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  against  whom  Dr.  Milner  had 
poured  out  his  invectives,  was,  at  the  time  Dr.  Grier  wrote, 
distinguished  as  the  zealous  champion  for  the  disputed  text. 
Mr.  Nolan's  book  in  its  favour  had  lately  appeared  ;  and  so 
eminent  a  critic  and  so  profound  a  reasoner  as  Bishop 
Horsley,  had  admitted  the  authenticity  of  1  John  v.  7,  not 
from  external,  but  from  the  force  o^  internal  testimony.  The 
tide  was  therefore  turning  at  that  time  in  En^iland  in  favour 
of  the  text ;  and  all  this  had  such  an  effect  upon  Dr.  Grier's 
mind  that  he  felt  *' compelled  to  abandon  his  former  preju- 
dices against  it,  and  to  think  that  a  person  should  almost  as 
soon  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  rest  of  St.  John's  Epistle 
as  that  of  the  disputed  passage."* 


*  Grier's  Reply,  p.  4G. 


THE   BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TBADITION. 


57 


The  present  writer  has  no  prejudices  against  the  text;  for 
he  fully  believes  in  its  doctrinal  truth,  and  can  therefore 
read  it  with  a  safe  conscience,  as  he  could  any  other  apocry- 
phal passage  ;  but  he  cannot  quote  it  as  part  of  the  canon  or 
rule  of  faith.  An  interpolation  may  be  so  consistent  with 
the  rule  of  faith,  as  to  seem,  from  internal  evidence  alone,  to 
be  a  genuine  part  of  it;  but  if  it  wants  external  testimony  it 
must  be  rejected.  In  other  words,  internal  may  be  a  very 
powerful  auxiliary,  but  can  never  be  a  substitute,  for  external 
evidence.  And  this  is  what  Hooker  meant  in  saying,  that  "  it 
is  not  the  Word  of  God  which  doth  or  possibly  can  assure  us 
that  we  do  well  to  think  it  his  Word."*  To  every  passage  of 
the  Bible  whatsoever,  the  external  testimony  is  of  three  kinds : 
first,  the  existing  manuscripts  of  the  original  text,  copied  in 
various  countries,  and  from  age  to  age  ;  secondly,  the  trans- 
lations into  various  languages,  made  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
Church  from  the  original  text,  and  therefore  representing  the 
original  manuscripts  from  which  they  were  taken ;  thirdly, 
the  quotations  made  by  Christian  writers  of  various  ages 
and  countries,  more  especially  in  works  of  controversy, 
where  much  depends  on  the  precision  with  which  authorities 
are  cited.  Where  all  these  agree,  the  external  testimony  is 
as  strong  as  evidence  well  can  be.  It  amounts,  in  fact,  to  a 
moral  demonstration.  That  which  all  admit  must  be  true  ; 
that  which  all  reject  must  be  false.  By  this  threefold  rule, 
let  us  examine  the  passage,  1  John  v.  7. 

1.  The  greatest  number  now  known  of  the  manuscripts 
of  this  epistle,  in  the  original  Greek,  is  149.  Of  this  num- 
ber 145  do  not  contain  the  clause  from  "  in  heaven,"  to 
"  in  earth ;"  and  the  remaining  four  are  of  little  or  no  criti- 
cal value.  These  are  known  to  critics  under  the  names  of 
the  Codices  Guelpherbitanus,  Ravianus,  Montfortianus  and 
Ottobonianus,  298.  The  Codex  Guelpherbitanus  is  evidently 
a  manuscript  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  for  it  contains  the 
Latin  translation  of  Beza  written  by  the  same  hand.  The 
Codex  Ravianus,  now  at  Berlin,  is  a  forgery ;  a  transcript 
of  the  Greek  text  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  with  vari- 
ous readings  from  Stephens's  third  edition  of  1550. 

The  remaining  two  are  the  Codex  Montfortianus,  in  Trini- 


*  Ecc.  Pol.,  b.ii.  §4- 


58 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S  END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


59 


ty  College,  Dublin,  called  by  Erasmus  Codex  BritannicuSf 
and  the  Codex  OttohonianuSy  in  the  Vatican  Library,  No. 
298.* 

The  Codex  Montfortianus  is  written  in  small  characters , 
on  thick  glazed  'paper. "]  These  are  signs  by  which  critics 
can  discern  the  limits  of  its  possible  antiquity.  There  are 
other  signs  which  show  that  it  was  written  in  the  west  of 
Europe ;  for  it  is  divided  according  to  the  Latin  chapters, 
which  were  introduced  by  Cardinal  Hugo  de  S.  Caro,  who 
died  in  1262,  and  are  altogether  foreign  to  the  usage  of  the 
Greek  Church  before  the  introduction  of  printed  editions. 
No  Greek  manuscripts  are  known  to  be  extant  in  which 
these  chapters  are  found,  prior  to  the  taking  of  Constanti* 
nople,  (a.  d.  1453,)  when  the  Greek  fugitives  became 
transcribers  for  the  Latin  Church,  and  of  course  adopted  the 
Latin  chapters.  Bishop  Marsh  therefore  agrees  with  Gries- 
bach  in  assigning  the  Codex  Montfortianus  to  the  fifteenth 
or  sixteenth  century.  "  It  made  its  first  appearance,"  he 
observes,  "  about  the  year  1520 ;  and  that  the  manuscript 
had  just  been  written  when  it  first  appeared,  is  highly  prob- 
able, because  it  appeared  at  a  critical  juncture,  and  its  ap- 
pearance answered  a  particular  purpose.  Erasmus  had 
published  two  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  one  in  1516, 
the  other  in  1519,  both  of  which  were  without  the  words  that 
begin  with  iv  tw  ovQavM,  [in  heaven,]  and  end  with  iv  ifi  yfi, 
[in  earth,]  in  the  disputed  clause  in  1  John  v.  7,  8.  This 
omission,  as  it  was  called  by  those  who  paid  more  deference 
to  the  Latin  translation  than  to  the  Greek  original,  exposed 
Erasmus  to  much  censure,  though,  in  fact,  the  complaint 
was  for  non-addition.  Erasmus  therefore  very  properly 
answered,  that  it  was  not  his  province  to  add  what  was  want- 
ing in  the  original  manuscript.  "  Addendi  de  meo,  quod 
GrsDcis  deest,  provinciam  non  susceperam."  He  promised, 
however,  that,  though  he  could  not  insert  in  a  Greek  edition 
what  he  had  never  found  in  a  Greek  manuscript,  he  would 
insert  the  passage  in  his  next  edition,  if,  in  the  mean  time,  a 
Greek  manuscript  could  be  discovered  which  had  the  pas- 
sage.    In  less  than  a  year  after  that  declaration,  Erasmus 

*  Home's  Introd.  Analysis  of  the  N.  T.  p.  vi.  c.  iv.  sec.  v. 

t  Marsh's  Mich8Blis,vol.  ii.  p.  284. 


was  informed  that  there  was  a  Greek  manuscript  in  Eng- 
land which  contained  the  passage.  At  the  same  time  a 
copy  of  the  passage,  as  contained  in  that  MS.  was  commu- 
nicated to  Erasmus ;  and  Erasmus,  as  he  had  promised,  in- 
serted that  copy  in  his  next  edition,  which  was  published  in 
1522."* 

The  Codex  Vaticano-Ottobonianus,  298,  was  first  col. 
lated  by  Dr.  Scholtz,  for  his  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  second  volume  of  which,  containing  the  Acts,  Epistles, 
and  Apocalypse,  was  published  after  his  death,  in  1836. 
Previously,  however,  in  the  year  1829,  a  fac-simile  of  the 
disputed  passage  was  sent  by  Dr.  Wiseman  to  the  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  (Dr.  Burgess,  who  was  Dr.  Milner's  Bishop  of 
St.  David's,)  and  was  by  him  obligingly  communicated  to 
the  Rev.  T.  H.  iiorne,  who  has  inserted  it  in  his  valuable 
Introduction,  and  thus  made  it  accessible  to  my  readers. 
From  Dr.  Scholtz  and  Dr.  Wiseman,  the  abridged  account 
of  this  manuscript  is  given  in  Home's  Introduction.  It  was 
written  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  contains  the  Latin  and 
Greek  in  collateral  columns.  It  "  has  been  altered  in  many 
places  in  order  to  make  it  harmonize  with  the  Latin  Vulgate.''i[ 
It  cannot  therefore  be  of  any  critical  value.  These  two 
being  the  only  Greek  manuscripts  which  can  possibly  be 
adduced  as  authorities,  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  disputed 
passage  would  be  exceedingly  slender,  even  if  the  witnesses 
agreed.  But  they  do  jiot  agree  ;  and  of  this  the  reader  may 
easily  convince  himself  by  comparing  the  fac-similes  of 
both,  in  the  work  to  which  I  have  referred.  J  It  will  be  seen 
that  in  both,  the  Greek  is  a  translation  from  the  Latin  by  per- 
sons ignorant  of  the  distinctive  idioms  of  the  two  languages. 
The  Codex  Montfortianus,  which  has  been  traced  up  to  a 
Franciscan  monk  named  Froy,  about  or  before  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century, §  was  interpolated  by  some  Latin 
who  was  unskillful  in  Greek.  The  Codex  Ottobonianus,  on 
the  other  hand,  seems  to  have  been  written  by  some  one  who 

*  Bp.  Marsh's  Lectures,  part  vi.  lect.  xxvii.  pp.  23,  24,  and  note 
12.     See  also  Home's  Introd.  vol.  ii.  pp.  141-143. 

t  Scholtz,  Bib.  Krit.  Reise,  p.  105,  apud  Home,  vol.  ii.  pp.  193,  194. 

t  Home's  Introd.,  vol.  ii.  p.  141  and  193  ;  vol.  iv.  pp.  449,  450. 

§  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  iii.  p.  757.  Translator's  note  to  vol.  ii.  p. 
285  ;  and  Mill,  Proleg.  1379. 


60 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


did  not  well  understand  Latin.  In  this  way,  at  least,  we 
may  possibly  account  for  the  extraordinary  readings  from 
heaven  instead  of  in  heaven,  and  from  earth  instead  of  in 
or  on  earth,  translated  from  the  Latin  in  ca/o  and  in  terra. 
Whether  this  conjecture  be  or  be  not  correct,  the  bad  Greek 
of  the  Codex  Montfortianus,  and  the  blundering  translation 
of  the  Codex  Ottobonianus,  added  to  their  recent  date,  de- 
prive both  of  all  credibility  as  Greek  manuscripts. 

2.  We  come  now  to  the  versions.  The  clause  in  ques- 
tion "  is  totally  unknown  to  the  manuscripts  of  the  old  Syriac 
version.  It  is  wanting  in  the  new  Syriac  or  Philoxenian 
version,  which  was  made  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  cen- 
turv,  and  collated  with  Greek  MSS.  at  Alexandria  in  the 
beginning  of  the  seventh  ;  it  is  wanting  also  in  the  Arabic 
M.SS.  as  well  of  the  version  printed  in  the  Polyglotts,  as  of 
that  which  was  published  by  Erpenius  ;  it  is  wanting  in  the 
Ethiopic,  the  Coptic  and  the  Sahidic  ;  it  is  wanting  in  the 
MSS.  of  the  Armenian  version,  and  in  those  of  the  Slavo- 
nian of  Russian  version  ;  and  lastly,  it  is  wanting  in  the  most 
ancient  MSS.  even  of  the  Latin  version.'^  * 

It  was  my  good  fortune  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
learned  Professor  Fleck,  of  Leipsic,  when  he  was  employed 
in  collating  MSS.  for  his  edition  of  tlie  Vulgate  New  Testa- 
ment, which  he  has  since  published.  At  his  request  I  col- 
lated the  Apocalypse,  the  Epistle  lo  the  Hebrews,  and  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  in  a  very  ancient  Latin  MS.,  supposed  to 
have  been  written  for  St.  Gregory  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
certainly  as  old  as  the  sixth  century.  I  have  now  a  fac- 
simile, which  I  carefully  traced  at  the  time,  and  which, 
without  the  contractions,  reads  as  follows  : 

Quia  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  darit  Spiritus  et  Aqua  et 
Sanguis,  et  tres  unum  sunt. 

In  English  thus  :  • 

For  there  arc  three  which  bear  record,  the  Spirit,  and 
the  water  and  the  blood,  and  these  three  are  one. 

In  the  time,  therefore,  of  Gregory  the  Great,  the  Latin 
version  of  this  passage  agreed  with  the  Greek. 

But  in  the  year  1832,  being  at  Venice,  I  took  a  fac-simile 
of  the  passage   in  a  manuscript  of  St.  Mark's  Library,  de- 

*  Marsh's  Letters  to  Travis,  preface,  vii.-x. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


61 


signaled  as  Codex  XL,  written  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Arabic, 
in  three  collateral  columns,  and  described  in  the  catalogues 
of  Zanetti  and  Morelli,  as  written  about  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury. The  Greek  and  the  Arabic  have  not  the  disputed 
passage :  but  the  Latin,  written  between  them,  the  contrac- 
tions being  filled  up,  is  as  follows : 

"  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra  spiritus, 
aqua  et  sanguis  et  hii  (sic)   tres  unum  sunt.      Et  tres  sunt 
qui  testimonium  dant  in  celo  (sic)  pater,  verbum  et  spiritus 
sanctus  et  tres  unum  sunt,  xviii." 
In  English  thus  : 

*'  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  earth,  the  spirit, 
the  water,  and  the  blood,  and  these  three  are  one.  And  there 
are  three  that  hear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  three  are  one.'^ 

Of  this  passage,  in  a  letter  written  May  12,  1832,  to  Dr, 
Burgess,  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  I  gave  the  following 
description  :  "  The  words  '  in  celo  (sic)  pater,  verbum  et  sps 
scs  et  tres  unum  sunt,  xviii,'  are  not  only  in  smaller  char- 
acters, but  are  written  with  ink  of  a  much  paler  and  yellower 
colour  than  the  rest.  I  should  think,  from  the  appearance  of 
the  manuscript,  that  the  scribe,  having  perceived  the  discre- 
pancy of  the  text  and  the  version,  had  left  a  blank,  which  he 
afterwards  filled  up  with  smaller  characters,  such  as  one 
writes  who  is  pressed  for  room,  and  with  ink  of  a  different 
colour.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  a  secunda  manu,  be- 
cause the  letters,  though  smaller,  are  written  very  much  in 
the  same  style." 

It  is  clear  then,  I  think,  that  sometime  after  the  sixth  cen- 
tury the  Latin  version  had  been  interpolated,  and  that  even 
in  the  thirteenth  century  it  was  in  an  uncertain  and  fluctuat- 
ing state.  This  the  extract  from  the  manuscript  just  quoted 
abundantly  shows ;  for  the  earthly  witnesses  are  placed  be- 
fore the  heavenly.  Griesbach  affirms,  as  the  consentient 
observations  of  the  learned,  that  the  more  ancient  of  those 
manuscripts  whicli  contain  the  passage,  have  this  order,  and 
that  it  is  omitted  by  all  which  are  older  than  the  ninth  cen- 
tury.* 

3.  That  it  was  never  quoted  by  the  Greek  fathers  in  the 

*  N.  T.  torn.  ii.  Appendix,  pp.  12,13. 
4 


62 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


63 


Arian  controversy,  would  be  utterly  inexplicable,  if  it  had 
been  in  their  copies.  The  first  instance  of  such  quotation 
occurs  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Acts  of  the  fourth 
Lateran  Council,  held  at  Rome  in  1215.  The  translation,  of 
course,  was  later,  made  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  the  Greek 
to  the  Latin  Church  ;  and  even  that  speaks  of  the  passage  as 
found  only  in  some  manuscripts J*^  The  first  Greek  writer 
who  quoted  it  was  Emanuel  Calecas,  about  one  hundred 
years  after  the  Lateran  Council,  or  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  He  became  a  monk  of  the  order  of  St. 
Dominic,  and  adopted  the  tenets  of  the  Latin,  in  opposition  to 
those  maintained  by  the  Greek  church.  It  is  certain  there- 
fore that  there  are  no  Greek  authorities  in  favour  of  the 
passage,  till  we  come  nearly  to  the  age  of  the  Codices  Mont- 
fortianus  and  Ottobonianus. 

If  there  be  then  so  little  authority  for  the  disputed  pas- 
sage, how,  it  may  be  asked,  did  it  creep  into  the  Latin 
version  ?  We  answer,  by  means  of  marginal  annotations, 
derived  from  a  gloss  upon  the  eighth  verse.  As  Bishop 
Marsh  has  clearly  stated  the  facts  of  the  case,  they  shall  be 
given  in  his  own  words. 

"  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  the  celebrated  Latin 
Father  Augustin,  who  wrote  ten  Treatises  on  the  first  Epistle 
of  St.  John,  in  all  of  which  we  seek  in  vain  for  the  seventh 
verse  of  the  fifth  Chapter,  was  induced  in  his  controversy 
with  Maximin  to  compose  a  gloss  upon  tiie  eighth  verse. 
Augustin  gives  it  professedly  as  a  gloss  upon  the  words  of 
the  eigthth  verse,  and  shows,  by  his  own  reasoning,  that  the 
seventh  verse  did  not  then  exist.  The  high  character  of 
Augustin  in  the  Latin  Church  soon  gave  celebrity  to  his 
gloss;  and  in  a  short  time  it  was  generally  adopted.  It 
appeared,  indeed,  under  different  forms  ;  but  it  was  still 
the  gloss  of  Augustin,  though  variously  modified.  The 
gloss  having  once  obtained  credit  in  the  Latin  Church,  the 
possessors  of  Latin  manuscripts  began  to  note  it  in  the 
margin,  by  the  side  of  the  eighth  verse.  Hence  the  oldest 
of  those  Latin  manuscripts,  which  have  the  passacre  in  the 
margin,  have  it  in  a  different  hand  from  that  of  The  text. 
In  later  manuscripts   we  find  margin  and  text  in  the  same 

*  Acta  Concil.  Hardouin,  torn.  viii.  17. 


hand  ;  for  transcribers  did  not  venture  immediately  to  move 
it  into  the  body  of  the  text,  though  in  some  manuscripts  it  is 
interlined,  but  interlined  by  a  later  hand.  After  the  eighth 
century  the  insertion  became  general.  For  Latin  manu- 
scripts written  after  that  period  have  generally,  though  not 
always,  the  passage  in  the  body  of  the  text.  Further,  when 
the  seventh  verse  made  its  first  appearance  in  the  Latin 
manuscripts,  it  appeared  in  as  many  different  forms  as  there 
were  forms  to  the  gloss  upon  the  eighth  verse.  And  though 
it  now  -precedes  the  eighth  verse,  ii  followed  the  eighth  verse 
at  its  first  insertion,  as  a  gloss  would  naturally  follow  the 
text  upon  which  it  was  made.  It  is  not  therefore  matter  of 
mere  conjecture,  that  the  seventh  verse  originated  in  a 
Latin  gloss  upon  the  eighth  verse,  it  is  an  historical  fact,  sup- 
ported by  evidence  which  cannot  be  resisted.* 

Let  us  now  consider  the  question  as  relates  to  the  honesty 
of  the  English  Translators.  The  knowledge  of  Greek,  which 
had  been  nearly  lost  in  the  west  of  Europe,  sprung  up  after 
the  capture  of  Constantinople,  and  soon  made  its  way  into 
England.  Erasmus  went  thither  in  1497,  at  the  age  of  thirty, 
and  remained  at  Oxford  more  than  two  years,  pursuing  his 
Greek  studies,  by  the  assistance  of  Grocyn,  Linacer,  and 
William  Latimer.  The  latter  afterwards  assisted  him  in 
the  preparation  of  his  second  edition  of  the  New  Testament ; 
for  he  was  invhed  to  England  in  1509  by  Henry  VIII.,  and 
was  there  from  1510  to  1513,  and  again  from  1517  to  1518. 
His  two  editions  of  the  New  Testament  of  1516  and  1519 
were  without  the  Latin  interpolation  in  1  John  v.  7-S.  His 
influence  in  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  is 
too  well  known  to  need  any  further  remark  ;  and  although 
in  his  third  edition  of  1522,  he  admitted  this  passage  in 
Greek,  on  the  authority  of  Froy's  manuscript,  which  he  call- 
ed the  Codex  Britannicus,  yet  it  was  well  understood  that  he 
did  so  more  to  escape  persecution,  than  from  any  real  convic- 
tion that  it  was  genuine.  In  1539  appeared  Abp.  Cran- 
mer's  Bible,  the  first  which  was  allowed  to  be  read  in 
Ciiurches.  In  that  translation  the  suspected  passage  was 
printed  in  parenthesis,  and  in  smaller  type,  the  whole  being 
in  the  old  English  character : 

*  Bp.  Marsh's  Lectures,  pt.  vi.  pp.  19-23. 


64 


REPLY   TO   MILNER's    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


(ffor  Ibcvc  arc  tijrcc  U)l)ic!)e  beavc  rcroctJC  fii  i)cnbcn,  tf)e  fatj)ev, 
t|)e  li)oc"D,  euiT)  tijc  Jjoh)  flost.    SlnU  tijcsc  t1)icc  aic  one. 

jFor  there  are  three  \Mhtehe  ijeare  reeortre  (in 
earth)  tijr  spirit,  antr  ^uater,  tints  Woutre ;  antr 
these  three  are  one* 

Even  so  late  as  the  year  1566  an  edition  of  this  Bible, 
which  I  have  before  mc,  retains  the  same  distinction.  But 
Abp.  Parker's,  or  what  is  called  the  Bishop's  Bible,  first  set 
forth  in  1568,  made  no  such  distinction.  I  have  before  me 
Christopher  Barker's  splendid  edition  of  1583  in  which  the  two 
verses  are  printed  nearly  as  they  exist  in  the  present  author- 
ized version,  or  that  of  King  James,  1611 :  viz.  "  7.  For  there 
are  three,  which  bcare  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Worde  and  tlie  Holy  Ghost :  and  these  three  are  one. 
8.  And  there  are  three  which  beare  recorde  in  the  earth,  the 
spirite,  and  the  water  and  the  blood  :  and  these  three  agree 
in  one." 

To  account  for  this  change,  let  it  be  observed,  that  in 
1550  appeared  the  famous  tiiird  edition  of  Robert  Stephens 
which  was  supposed  to  settle  the  question  in  favour  of  the 
disputed  text.  The  celebrity  of  the  printer,  and  a  mistaken 
reliance  upon  his  accuracy,  induced  the  belief  tiiat  it  was 
contained  in  the  manuscripts  collated  for  his  edition.  All 
controversy  on  the  subject  died  away  ;  nor  was  it  revived 
until  the  manhood  of  criticism  began  by  the  noble  edition  of 
Mill  in  1707. 

This  is  the  only  apology  which  I  can  render  for  the  con- 
duct of  the  editors  employed  at  Rome  under  the  Popes  Six- 
tus  V.  and  Clement  Vlll.  in  setting  forth  the  standard  edi- 
tion of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  is  certain  that  they  had  be- 
fore them  the  ancient  manuscript  of  the  sixth  century,  which 
I  have  mentioned  as  partially  collated  by  me  ;  for  there  is 
an  acknowledgment  on  one  of  the  blank  leaves,  that  on  the 
12th  of  July,  1581,  it  was,  by  order  of  Sixtus  V.,  carried  to 
Rome  by  the  Cardinal  Antonio  Carafa  for  the  emendation  of 
the  Latin  Vulgate  Bible,  and  was  returned  on  the  19lh  of 
January,  1591.  Having  thus  been  kept  there  nearly  ten  years, 
it  must  have  been  carefully  collated.  There  is  no  excuse 
for  them  if  they  did  not  collate  it ;  and  yet  in  the  face  of 
such  testimony,  they  chose  to  follow  the  corrupted  text  of 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


65 


the  media3val  ages,  and  said  not  one  word  to  their  readers 
concerning  that  purer  reading  which  accorded  exactly  with 
the  received  text  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  was  very  proba- 
bly written  for  the  use  of  the  great  St.  Gregory  himself!  I 
ask  how  Dr.  Milner  could  have  attempted  to  brand  the 
Church  of  England  with  the  stigma  of  corrupting  the  Holy 
Bible  ?  He  could  not  have  known  the  facts  of  the  case  ;  or 
he  must  have  sought,  meanly  and  unblushingly,  to  impose 
upon  his  readers.  It  is  his  own  infallible  Church  which 
has  ADDED  to  the  Word  of  God. 


§  3.     The  Fidelity  of  the  EiigUsh 'Translation. 

Admitting  "that  the  several  books  in  your  Bible  are 
canonical  and  authentic  in  the  orifjinals,"  how  do  vou  know 
that  "  they  are  faithfully  translated  in  your  English  copy  .?" 
1  shall  not  waste  many  words  in  reply.  Dr.  Milner  talks  of 
the  English  Translators,  as  "  fifty  dilTerent  men,  of  various 
capacities,  learning,  judgment,  opinions,  and  prejudices." 
Well  !  Fifty  are  better  than  one  ;  and  certainly  fifty  must 
be  different  f  Pray  had  St.  Jerome,  who  translated  the  Latin 
Bible,  no  peculiar  opinions  or  prejudices  ?  The  '*  fifty"  had 
the  benefit  of  St.  Jerome's  capacity,  learning,  and  judgment, 
and  they  probably  knew  quite  as  much  Hebrew,  if  not  Greek, 
as  he.  But  "  Episcopius"  he  says,  ''  was  so  convinced  of 
the  fallibility  of  modern  translations,  that  he  wanted  all  sorts 
of  persons,  labourers,  sailors,  women,  (Sec,  to  learn  Hebrew 
and  Greek."  Why  modern  good  sir  ?  were  not  ancient 
translations  fallible  ?  And  as  to  Hebrew  and  Greek,  if 
labourers,  sailors,  and  women  (!)  had  the  time  to  learn  them, 
where  would  be  tiie  harm  ?  But  a  truce  to  such  egregious 
triflinsf,  and  let  us  come  to  facts. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  decree  already  cited,  pro- 
nounced the  Old  Vulgate  edition  to  be  authentic,  and  forbade 
any  one  to  reject  it,  under  any  pretext  whatsoever.*  m 
other  words,  it  elevated  a  mere  translation,  and  that,  as  we 
have  seen,  with  a  faulty  and  corrupted  text,  to  the  rank  of 
the  original  Scriptures.  The  consequence  is,  that  in  the 
Roman  Communion  no  one  dares  to  depart  from  the  standard 

*  Con.  Trid.  Sessio  quarta.  Ed.  1564,  p.  21. 


66 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


edition  of  the  Latin  Bible  set  forth  by  Sixtus  V.  and  his 
successor  Clement  VIII.  I  shall  not  here  dwell  upon  the 
derision  of  the  learned,  in  pointinn;  out  the  blunders  and  cor- 
rections  of  the  two  infallible  editions  of  1590  and  1592. 
They  were  well  exposed  by  James  in  his  Bellum  Papale  ; 
and  specimens  of  them  may  be  seen  in  Home's  Introduction, 
Vol.  ii.  p.  237-8.  I  mention  the  fact  merely  to  show  the 
hollow  pretensions  of  this  boasted  infallibility,  and  the  arro- 
gant impiety  of  claiming  for  an  uninspired  composition  that 
veneration  which  is  due  only  to  the  sacred  orifjrinals. 

The  English  Communion  have  never  pretended  to  such 
infallibility,  nor  been  guilty  of  such  proud  profanity.  AH 
translations  are  human,  and  must  be  more  or  less  defective. 
But  of  all  uninspired  compositions,  the  English  Bible,  in  the 
sober  and  impartial  judgment  of  the  wise  and  learned,  ranks 
among  the  highest.  There  may  be  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  "  the  choice  of  a  single  word  ;"  and  in  some  cases  the 
translation  of  1011  may  be  thought  to  have  expressed  the 
sense  of  the  original  not  so  clearly  as  Abp.  Cranmer's,  or 
the  Bishops'  Bible.  But  taking  it  all  in  all,  there  is  no 
translation  superior  to  it.  Yet  of  what  avail  would  it  be  to 
offer  proof  to  those  who  are  determined  to  reject  it  ?  To 
men  who  shut  their  eyes,  the  sun  shines  in  vain.  Let  any 
plain  man  compare  what  is  called  the  Douay  Bible  with  the 
authorized  English  Translation,  and  then  let  him  judge 
which  has  the  clearest  marks  of  fidelity  and  truth.  I  select 
a  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  to  present  to  the  read- 
er  in  parallel  columns.  I  copy  from  the  original  edition  of 
the  Jesuit  Translation  printed  at  Rhemes  (Rheims)  in  1582  ; 
and  to  avoid  misapprehension  I  add  that  the  Old  Testament 
is  properly  the  Douay ,  and  the  New  Testament  the  Rheims 
version. 

Gal.  ii.  6-14. 
Rheims  Version,  1582.  English  Translation, of  iGil. 

"  But  of  them  that  seemed  to  be  "  But  of  those  who  seemed  to  be 
something,  (what  they  were  some-  somewhat,  whatsoever  they  w^ere 
time,  it  is  nothing  to  me.  God  it  mnketh  no  matter  to  me  :  God 
accepteth  not  the  person  of  man),  accepteth  no  man's  person  :  for  they 
for  to  me,  they  that  seemed  to  be  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat  in 
something,  added  nothing.  But  conference  added  nothing  to  me. 
contrariewise,  when  they  had  seen.  But  contrariwise,  when  they  saw 
that  to  me  was  committed  the  Gos-     that  the  Gospel  of  the  uncircumcis- 


THE    BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


67 


ion  was  committed  unto  me,  as  the 
Gospel  of  the  circumcision  was 
unto  Peter  ;  (for  he  that  wrought 
effectually  in  Peter  to  the  Apostle- 
ship  of  the  circumcision,  the  same 
was  mighty  in  me  toward  the  Gen- 
tiles ;)  and  when  James,  Cephas  and 
John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  per- 
ceived the  grace  that  was  given  un- 
to me,  they  gave  to  me  and  Barna- 
bas the  right  hands  of  fellowship  ; 
that  we  should  go  unto  the  heathen, 
and  they  unto  the  circumcision. 
Only  they  would  that  we  should 
remember  the  poor  ;  the  same  which 
I  also  was  forward  to  do. 

"  But  when  Peter  was  come  to 
Antioch,  I  withstood  him  to  the  face, 
because  he  was  to  be  blamed.    For 
before     that     certain    came    from 
James,  he  did  eat  with  the  Gentiles ; 
but  when  they  were  come,  he  with- 
drew and  separated  himself,  fearing 
them  which  were  of  the  circumcis- 
ion.    And  the  other  Jews  dissem- 
bled likewise  with  him  ;  insomuch 
that   Barnabas  also    was    carried 
away  with  their  dissimulation.  But 
when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not 
uprightly,  according  to  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel,  I  said  unto  Peter,  be- 
fore them  all.  If  thou,  being  a  Jew, 
livest  after  the  manner  of  Gentiles, 
and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  cora- 
pellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as 
do  the  Jews  ]  " 

Now  I  ask,  not  the  scholar  who  can  go  to  the  Greek,  and 
see  and  judge  for  himself,  but  I  ask  the  plain,  unlettered 
man,  which  of  these  translations  conveys  to  him  the  clearest 
sense  ?  He  must  at  once  see  that,  in  general,  both  convey 
the  sense  of  the  original ;  but  in  the  Rheims  version  it  is 
throuMi  a  latinized  medium.  The  "labourers,  and  sailors, 
and  vvomen  (  ! )"  must  learn  Latin,  if  not  Greek  and  He- 
brew, so  that  their  condition  is  not  much  bettered  by  the 
exchancre.  And  here  let  me  ask,  how  the  "  labourers,  and 
sailors,''and  women,"  who  read  the  Rhemish  version,  and  no 
other,  can  possibly  find  out  that  it  was  St.  Peter  whom  St. 


pel  of  the  prepuce,  as  to  Peter  of 
the  circumcision  (for  he  that  wrought 
in  Peter  to  the  Apostleship  of  the 
circumcision,  wrought  in  me  also 
among  the  Gentils)  and  when  they 
had  knowen  the  grace  that  was 
given  me,  James  and  Cephas  and 
John,  which  seemed  to  be  pillers, 
gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right 
handes  of  societie  :  that  we  unto  the 
Gentiles,  and  they  unto  the  circum- 
cision, only  that  we  should  be  minde- 
ful  of  the  poore  ;  the  which  same 
thing  also  I  waa  careful  to  doe. 


"  And  when  Cephas  was  come  to 
Aniioche,  I  resisted  him  in  face, 
because  he  was  reprehensible.  For 
before  that  certain  came  from  James, 
he  did  eate  with  the  Gentiles  ;  but 
when  they  were  come,  he  withdrew 
and  separated  himself,  fearing  them 
that  were  of  the  circumcision.  And 
to  his  simulation  consented  the 
rest  of  the  Jewes,  so  that  Barnabas 
also  was  ledde  of  them  into  that 
simulation.  But  when  I  saw  that 
they  walked  not  rightly  to  the  veri- 
tie  of  the  Gospel,  1  said  to  Cephas 
before  them  al :  If  thou  being  a 
Jewe,  livest  Gentile-like  and  not 
Judaically :  how  doest  thou  compel 
the  Gentiles  to  Judaize." 


es 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Paul  resisted  ?  The  English  translators  have  honestly  ren- 
dered the  Greek  original  Feter  ;  but  the  Jesuits,  following  the 
Vulgate,  have  put  in  Cephas,  which  was  the  Syro-Clialdaic 
name  of  Peter.  This  must  greatly  help  "  all  sorts  of  per- 
sons," as  Dr.  Milner  calls  the  "  labourers,  sailors,  women, 
&c.,"  and  etfectually  guard  them  from  the  danger  of  doubting 
St.  Peter's  supremacy. 

But  Dr.  Milner  did  not  always  deal  in  vague  and  gene- 
ral accusations  against  our  honest  translators.  lie  has  con- 
descended to  name  two  passages  which,  he  says,  they  have 
erroneously  translated,  and  which,  therefore,  1  lay  in  like 
manner  before  the  reader. 


Bheims  Version,  1582. 

1  Cor.  xi.  27.  Therefore  who- 
Boever  shal  eate  this  bread  or  drinke 
the  chalice  of  our  Lord  unworthily, 
he  shal  be  guilty  of  the  body  and 
of  the  blood  of  our  Lord. 

Matt.  xix.  n.  Not  al  take  this 
word,  but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 


Enslish  Translation. 

Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord,  unworlhily,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

All  men  cannot  receive  this  say- 
ing, save  thetj  to  whom  it  is  givcQ. 


In  the  first  of  these  passages  the  Greek  particle  tj  is  ren- 
dered in  the  Vulgate  vel,  and  consequently  by  the  Rhemish 
translators,  or  ;  but  in  the  Bishop's  Bible  and  the  present 
authorized  version  it  is  rendered  and,  though  in  Archbishop 
Cranmer's  Bible  it  is  translated  or.  Dr.  Milner  calls  this  a 
corruption.  If  it  be  so,  our  translators  are  in  good  company, 
for  they  have  with  them  the  Syriac,  all  the  Arabic,  the  Cop- 
tic, the  jEthiopic,  St.  Jerome,*  Chromatins  of  x\quileia,  Cas- 
siodorus,  and  Bede.f  The  Codices  Alexandrinus  and  Claro- 
montanus,  and  two  other  in  small  cliaracters  read  xul.  I 
might  quote  Schleusner  and  Rosenmiiller,  who  fully  support 
our  translators ;  but  as  I  consider  the  question  at  issue  as 
very  little,  and  as  it  is  insisted  upon  by  Dr.  Milner  merely 
to  shore  up  a  very  rotten  part  of  his  system,  the  denial  of 
the  cup  to  the  laity,  I  shall  pass  on  to  the  consideration  of 
the  next  passage. 

•  Op.  tom.  iv.  adv.  Jovin.  c.  218.     Qui  enim  indignfc  manducaverit 
IT  biberit,  reus  erit  violati  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi. 
t  See  Sabatier  and  Griesbach  in  loc. 


■  I 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


69 


The  original  in  Matt.  xix.  31,  on  which  Dr.  Milner's 
criticism  turns,  are  the  words  ov  nuvisg  /oiQovaiy  which  the 
Vulgate  render,  non  omnes  capiunt ;  Abp.  Cranmer,  all  menne 
cannot  comprehend  ;  the  Bishops'  Bible  and  the  Authorized 
Version,  all  men  cannot  receive.  Our  scrupulous  translators 
have  printed  in  italics  the  word  men,  to  show  that  it  is  not 
expressed,  though  it  is  implied  in  the  original  Greek. 
Where  is  the  dilference  then  between  the  Vulgate  and  the 
English  ?  Does  not  the  word  capio  signify  to  comprehend^ 
receive,  or  take  intellectually  ?  Ah,  says  Dr.  Milner,  but  I 
object  to  that  word  cannot  because  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grier  and 
Dr.  Ryan  pretend  to  prove  from  other  texts  that  continency  is 
not  necessary! !  Was  there  ever  such  a  non-sequitur  ? 
When  will  such  men  as  Dr.  Milner  learn  to  separate  their 
theological  opinions  from  their  criticism  ?  Continency  not 
necessary  !  Poor  Dr.  Grier,  what  an  imputation  on  your 
character  !  But  the  Dr.  is  at  hand  to  return  answer  for 
himself:  "In  my  Answer  "  (i.  e.  his  answer  to  Ward's 
miserable  book  called  the  Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible,)  "  I 
have,  as  1  conceive,  satisfactorily  proved  that  the  rendering  of 
ov  nuiTfg x(»()oi(ji,  Matt.  xix.  11,  is  perfectly  correct  in  our 
Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible  :  as  beinof  most  agreeable  to 
the  original,  as  well  as  to  the  sense  in  which  SS.  Augustine 
and  Jerome  understand  it.  I  have  there  been  obliged  to 
convict  Dr.  Milner  of  gross  ignorance  of  the  Greek,  no  less 
than  of  a  fraudulent  application  of  the  Latin  language,  in 
which  he  is  so  deeply  versed  ;  and  have  proved  to  demon- 
stration, that  the  Rhemish  version  of  this  very  text  as  well 
as  of  ft  dt  oi'x  eyxQUTsiovjcci,  1  Cor.  vii.  9,  which  he  considers 
of  *  such  importance  towards  settling  the  disputes  concern- 
ing the  possihilUy  of  leading  a  continent  life,'  is  erroneous. 
Should  the  reader  refer  to  pages  33,  55,  and  92  of  my  An- 
swer, I  entreat  him  to  notice,  whether  I  have  expressly  or  by 
implication,  said  or  pretended  to  prove  that  continency  is  not 
necessary.  In  truth,  the  abstract  question,  whether  the  con- 
tinency of  the  clergy  was  or  was  not  necessary,  was  but  a 
secondary  object  with  me  ;  my  chief  design  being  to  show, 
that  an  ordinance  respecting  their  celibacy,  was  rather  of 
human,  than  of  divine  institution."*     Dr.   Grier  answered 

*  Grier's  Reply  to  Milner's  End  of  Controversy,  pp.  S5,  96. 

4* 


70 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


the  insinuation  gravely.  I  should  have  treated  it  with  sor- 
row for  Dr.  Milner,  but  with  silent  contempt  for  so  mean  an 
artifice. 

With  the  same  disingenuous  spirit  Dr.  Milner  asks  his 
supposed  correspondent,  Mr.  James  Brown,  "  Can  you  con- 
sistently reject  the  authority  of  the  great  Universal  Church, 
and  yet  build  upon  that  of  some  ohsciirc  translator  in  the 
reign  of  James  1.?"  Obscure  translator  !  Let  me  tell  Mr. 
Brown,  or  any  other  plain  man  of  common  sense  who  may 
read  the  boasted  *' End  of  Religious  Controversy,"  that  our 
translators  did  not  reject  the  authority  of  the  great  Universal 
Church,  and  that  they  weighed  with  the  most  scrupulous 
accuracy  the  words  they  used  to  convey  to  the  unlearned 
reader  the  true  sense  of  the  Bible.  The  following  is  Dr. 
Grier's  comprehensive  summary  of  facts  as  to  the  real  value 
of  our  English  Bible : 

"  If  we  now  direct  our  attention  from  the  consideration 
of  those  few  words  to  which  our  adversaries  object,  as  being 
erroneously  translated,  to  the  merit  of  our  translation  itself; 
we  shall  find,  that  for  tiio  three  critics,  viz.,  Gregory  Martin, 
Thomas  Ward,  and  Doctor  Milner,  who  have  heaped  on  it 
every  species  of  vituperation  and  abuse ;  not  merely  three, 
but  I  might  almost  say,  three  hundred,  of  the  soundest  divines 
and  most  profoundly  learned  biblical  scholars,  might  be  enu- 
merated, who  have  admired  it  for  its  general  faithfulness, 
the  severe  beauty  of  its  language,  and  the  simplicity  of  its 
style  ;  and  have  pronounced  it  one  of  the  grandest"  efibrts 
of  human  skill  and  industry.  That  they  are  borne  out  in 
the  high  encomiums  they  have  passed  on  it,  will  appear,  if 
we  but  advert  to  the  peculiarly  happy  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  executed  ; — the  flourishing  state  of  the  He- 
brew, and  the  wholesome  vigour  at  which  the  English  lan- 
guage had  at  the  time  arrived.  Every  prudent  and  wise 
precaution  was  taken,  in  employing  the  most  learned  men  of 
the  day,  and  in  laying  down  strict  rules  for  their  observance  ; 
and,  as  the  same  may  be  said  with  respect  to  those  who  pre- 
pared the  version  which  immediately  preceded  it,  the  cir- 
cumstance  of  our  last  English  Bible  being  a  revision  thus 
derived,  is  an  advantage  in  itself  of  the  greatest  value.  In 
short,  executed  as  it  was,  when  the  English  language  was, 
as  I  have  already  observed,  fresh  in  its  native  simplicity  and 


I 


THE   BIBLE,  OR   THE   WRITTEN   TRADITION. 


71 


vigour,  it  will  ever  be  esteemed  as  classical,  and  regarded 
with  awful  respect."* 

§  4.   The  true  sense  of  Scripture. 

For  a  wonder  Dr.  Milner  allows  that  a  "  learned  Protest- 
ant Bishop"  could  speak  the  language  of  St.  Jerome  and  St. 
Augustine  ;  and  he  translates,  accurately,  as  far  as  he  goes, 
the  words  of  Bishop  Walton,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Prole- 
gomena. I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  connecting  the  quotation 
with  its  context.  The  Bishop  is  showing  the  great  advan- 
tage to  be  derived  from  the  collection  and  collation  of  the 
several  ancient  versions  of  the  Bible.  He  observes  that  the 
languages  which  we  now  call  learned,  were  formerly  ver- 
nacular, and  therefore  commonly  understood.  There  is  a 
wonderful  agreement  of  all  these  versions  as  to  all  things 
necessary  to  faith  and  salvation  :  for  almost  every  variety 
consists  in  smaller  matters  which  are  not  necessary.  This 
agreement  among  all  nations,  divided  by  so  great  distances  of 
sea  and  land,  and  connected  only  by  the  bond  of  one  faith, 
clearly  shows  that  the  doctrine  of  these  manuscripts  is  not 
founded  on  human  wisdom,  but  established  by  Divine  au- 
thority. All  the  devices  of  Satan  and  his  followers,  all  the 
ignorance,  carelessness,  and  audacity  of  transcribers,  and  all 
the  frauds  of  heretics,  could  not  possibly  destroy  or  corrupt 
them.  For  what  might  possibly  happen  in  one  language, 
could  not  possibly  happen  in  so  many  versions  through  the 
whole  world.  Moreover  the  collation  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions, and  the  liturgies  and  divine  offices  which  obtained 
authority  in  the  pure  and  primitive  church,  threw  much  light 
for  eliciting  the  true  sense  of  Scripture  in  places  doubtful 
and  obscure.  And  then  follows  the  sentence  quoted  by  Dr. 
Milner,  '*  No  one,"  says  Walton,  '*  will  deny  this  who 
bears  in  mind  that  the  Word  of  God  does  not  properly  con- 
sist in  letters,  whether  written  or  printed,  but  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  words :  which  no  one  can  better  explain  than 
the  true  Church,  to  which  Christ  committed  this  sacred  de- 
posit ;  and  which,  by  the  various  versions,  faithfully  trans- 
mits to  posterity  its  genuine  sense,  handed  down  as  it  were 

*  Grier's  Reply  to  Milner,  pp.  98,  99. 


72 


REPLY    TO   milker's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


(quasi  per  manus  traditum)  from  the  Apostles,  and  received 
from  the  governors  of  the  churches."     Now  every  one  must 
see  that  the  true  Church  of  which  Bishop  Walton  speaks,  was 
that  pure  and  primitive  Church  which  handed  down  its  ver- 
sions, liturgies,  and  offices,  in  various  languages,  and  in  remote 
parts  of  the  world  ;  and  which,  by  its  traditive  testimony,  its 
faith   and  practice,  shows  the  true  sense  in  which  the  Scrip- 
tures are  to  be  understood.     This  is  that  traditive  interpre- 
tation of  which  Chillingworth  speaks  when  he  says  :  "  If  you 
make  it  good  unto  us,  that  the  same  tradition  down  from  the 
Apostles,  hath  delivered  from  age  to  age  and  from  hand  to 
hand,  any  interpretation  of  any  Scripture,  we  are  ready  to 
embrace  that  also."     And  again  :  "  If  there  be  any  traditive 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  produce  it,  and  prove  it  to  be  so, 
and   we   embrace   it.     But  the   tradition  of  all   ages  is  one 
thing ;  and  the  authority  of  the  present  Church,  much  more 
of  the  Roman  Church,  which  is  but  a  part,  and  a  corrupted 
part,  of  the  Catholic  Church,   is  another.     And,   therefore, 
though  we  are  ready  to  receive  both  Scripture  and  the  sense 
of  Scripture,  upon  the  authority  of  Original  Tradition,  yet 
we  receive  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  upon  the  authority 
of  your  Church."*     So  the  learned   Bishop  Bull :  "  With 
me  it  is,  and  always  will  be,  a  matter  of  conscience  not  to  in- 
terpret  the  Holy  Scriptures   against  the  torrent  of  all   the 
fathers  and  ancient  doctors,  unless  when  most  evident  argu- 
ments compel  me  to  do  so  ;  an  event  which  I  believe  will 
never  happen.     For  certainly  the  consentient  judgment  of 
antiquity,  and  especially  of  primitive  antiquity,  ought  to  out- 
weiofh  many  probabilities  and  plausible  reasonings. "f     So 
also  the  judicious  and  profound  Hooker,  in  one  of  the  very 
passages  quoted   by   Dr.    Milner:  "That  which  all   men's 
experience  teacheth  them,  may  not  in  any  wise  be  denied. 
And    by    experience    we    all  know,   that   tiie   first  outward 
motive   leading  men  so  to  esteem  of  the  Scripture  is  the  au- 
thority of  God's  Church.     For  when  we  knov/  the  whole 
Church  of  God  hath  that  opinion  of  the  Scripture,  we  judge 
it  even  at  the  first  an  impudent  thing  for  any  man  bred  and 

*  Chillingworth,  Scripture  the  only   Rule  to  judge    Controversies, 
chap.  ii.  §  88,  89,  lOih  ed.  fol.  1742,  p.  104. 
+  BuUi  Opera,  ed.  Grabe,  1703,  fol.  p.  9. 


THE    BIBLE,  OR    THE    WRITTEN    TRADITION. 


73 


brought  up  in  the  Church,  to  be  of  a  contrary  mind  whhout 


cause.'*'* 


From  the  language  of  these  learned  scholars,  deep  think- 
ers, and  great  divines,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  neither  de- 
nied the  just  influence  of  the  true  Church  Catholic,  nor  the 
legitimate  use  of  private  judgment.  The  voice  of  the  Church 
is  the  reason  and  learning  of  the  whole  Church ;  and  in  ap- 
pealing to  it  we  do  no  more  than  what  is  done  by  the  best 
judges  in  interpreting  the  laws  of  the  land.  As  Bishop 
Walton  says,  in  the  passage  of  which  Dr.  Milner  took  only 
such  part  as  suited  his  purpose,  the  ancient  versions,  the 
liturgies  and  divine  offices  of  the  Catholic  Church,  dispers- 
ed throughout  the  world,  in  languages  spoken  at  the  time 
by  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  exhibited  the  sense  in 
which  the  Scriptures  were  originally  understood.  In  all 
things  necessary  to  faith  and  salvation  they  speak  with  won- 
derful consent ;  and  even  on  doubtful  and  obscure  points  the 
knowledge  of  these  versions,  and  of  the  daily  practice  in  the 
pure  and  primitive  Church,  enables  us  greatly  to  elucidate 
the  true  sense  of  the  Holy  Bible.  To  these  sources  modern 
commentators  are  greatly  obliged,  though  they  who  igno- 
rantly  rail  at  antiquity  know  it  not.  It  is  only  when  men 
confine  themselves  to  one  version,  as  they  of  the  Roman 
communion  do  to  the  Vulgate,  that  errors  and  heresies  ca'eep 
in.  And  hence  it  is  that  we  of  the  English  Communion, 
who  recojinize  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  canon  as  our  unle  of 
faith,  and  use  all  the  lights  derived  from  the  diligent  com- 
parison of  ancient  versions,  and  the  writings  of  Oriental  and 
Greek  fathers,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Latin  Church,  un- 
daunted by  any  curse,  and  unfettered  by  any  modern  au- 
thority pretending  to  be  infallible,  have  been  enabled,  through 
God's  blessing,  to  restore  and  keep  steadfastly  the  faith  of 
primitive  catholicity.  All  the  diflerences  between  us  and 
the  Roman  Communion,  have  grown  out  of  their  servile 
adherence  to  the  Latin  version,  and  their  receipt  of  traditive 
testimony  and  interpretation,  since  the  fatal  divisions  which 
began  in  the  fifth  century.  These  differences  with  us  are 
chiefly  confined  to  their  own  solitary  communion,  and  even 
in  their  communion  enforced,  as  matters  of  faith,  only  since 
the  Council  of  Trent. 

*  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.  b.  iii.  8. 


74 


REPLY   TO   MILNEr's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Hebrew   and  Greek !  exclaims  Dr.  Milner  :  must  ♦'  all 
sort§  of  persons,  labourers,  sailors,  women,  (!)  &c.,   learn 
Hebrew  and    Greek  ?"— No,  my  good  sir,   no    more  than 
all  sorts  of  persons  in  your  Communion   must  learn   Latm. 
Thanks  be  to  God,  we  have   a  Prayer-book  which  even  the 
most  ignorant  of  our  laity  can   understand,  and  which  em- 
bodies Tn  a  devotional  form,  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures.     If,  as  I  have  already  observed,  the  noble  design 
of  the  English  reformers  had  been  carried  out,  not  an  indi- 
vidual in  The  wide   expanse  where  the   English  language  is 
spoken,  would  have  failed  to  be  instructed  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  Bible.     He  would  have  been  brought  into  the  Church 
by  holy  baptism   before  he   had  committed   actual  sin.     He 
would  have  been  taught  what  a  solemn  vow  and  profession 
had  been  then  made  in   his  name  to  lead  a  godly  and  a 
Christian  life.     His  childhood  would   have  been   catechized 
at  least  every  Sunday  in   the  first  principles  of  the  Catholic 
and   Apostolic   faith.     He  would  liave  been  confirmed  at  a 
proper  age,   and   admitted  to   the  Holy  Communion.      He 
would  have  listened,  every  day  of  his  life,  to  four  chapters  in 
the  Bible,  read  by  a  learned  priest,  who  did  know  Hebrew  and 
Greek,— but  read   in   his  own  language,  and  with  such  just 
emphasis  and   intonation,  that  the  very  reading  would  have 
conveyed  to   him  the  true   sense  of  God's   holy   word.     He 
would,  every  day  of  his  lifo,  have  repeated  the  creeds,  and 
unitefl  in  those  sublime  devotions  which,  saints  and   martyrs 
have  used,  in  all  parts  of  the  Christianized  world,  and  in  the 
briuhtest   and  purest  ages  of  the  Catholic  Church.     Who 
marred  all  this  goodly  design  ?     Alas !     Do  not  you  know  ? 
Have  you  never  read  of  ennssarics  from  Rome  who  assumed 
the  garb  and  imitated  the  manner  of  the   Puritan  teachers; 
prayed  extempore,   and  reviled,  as  being  popish,  the  liturgy 
of  the  Church  of  England  ?     History  faithfully  tci-tifies  that 
the  sad  variety  of  schisms  and  heresies  which  are  now  to 
you   such  an  occasion  of  triumph,  grew  out  of  your  own 
cruelties,  and   were    fomented    by   your  own   machinations. 
To  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Edward,  the  Church  of  England 
was  united.     Who  kindled  the  fires  of  Smithfield  and  drove 
to   Geneva  those  English   exiles,  who,   in  their    deep   and 
burning  resentment,  were  there  smitten  with  the  love  of  Cal- 
vinism, because  it  seemed  to  them  the  more  opposed  to  your 


DR.  MILNER  S   QUOTATIONS. 


75 


corruptions  ?— But  I  forbear  ;  for   I   seek  not  to  aggravate 
our  dissensions,  or  to  recriminate,  even  where  recrimination 

would  be  justly  due. 

Even   in  the  present  weak  and  imperfect  state  ot  our 
Communion,  longing  as  we  do  for  a  more  devout  and  general 
fulfilment  of  the  Church's   purposes,  I   will  be   bold  to  say 
that  no  one  who  clearly  understands  our  system  and  follows 
it  in  his  daily  practice,  can  be  carried  about  with  every  wind 
of  doctrine  and  the  cunning  craftiness  of  men,  whereby  they 
lie  in  wait  to  deceive.     Blind  submission  is  your  system ; 
enlightened  and   deferential    submission  is  ours.     The   in- 
stance I  have  mentioned  of  a  poor  woman  who  could  not 
read,  and   thousands  of  such   instances  might  be   recorded, 
clearly  proves  that  the  more  we  carry  out  the  designs  of  the 
English  Reformers  the   better  will  the  Bible  be  understood. 
As'the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  so  should  the 
people  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth.     It  is  true,  as  you  have 
said,  that  "there  are  in  Scripture  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood  which  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest  unto  their 
own  destruction."  2  Pet.  iii.  16.     So  it  was  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles ;  so  it  is  now ;  and  so  it  ever  will  be,  till  faith 
is  swallowed  up  of  knowledge.     But  in  our  Communion, 
the  well  taught  Christian  knows  whence  the  obscurity  pro- 
ceeds, and  how  far  it  extends.     If  God  has  not  clearly  re- 
vealed it,  our  ignorance  will  not  be  laid  to  our  account ;  and 
if  the  obscurity  arises    from  being  confined  to  a  single  ver- 
sion, the  well  taught  Christian  will  apply  to  him  who  is  set 
over  him  in  the  Lord,  to  resolve  his  doubts.     There  is  no 
more  uncertainty  in  our  Communion,  than  there  has  ever 
been  in  the  Catholic  Church  ;   and  all  attempts  to  enforce  the 
decision  of  a  present  infallible  interpreter,  end  only  in  spirit- 
ual  tyranny.     The  fires  of  the  Inquisition  have  made  hypo- 
crites  but  not  converts. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

DR.     MILNER's     QUOTATIONS. 

After  having  thus  endeavoured  to  convince  his  readers 
that  the  Bible  inltself  is  wholly  uncertain  and  inexplicable, 


76 


EEPLY    TO    MILNEr's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Dr.  Milner  proceeds,  in  his  tenth  eleventh,  and  twelfth  let- 
ters, with  which  lie  ends  his  first  part,  to  establish  what  he 
calls  "  the  true  rule"  of  faith,  and  to  answer  objections. 

This  "  true  rule"  of  faith,  he  says,  is  "  Scripture  and 
Tradition,"  but  both  Scripture  and  Tradition  only  as  "  pro- 
pounded and  explained  by  the  Catholic  Church."  It  "im- 
plies— a  two- fold  rule,  and  an  interpreter  or  judge  to  explain 
the  rule."* 

Now  the  fallacy  of  his  whole  argument  lies  in  assuming 
the  very  points  which  he  should  have  jyroved.  If  I  have 
been  so  fortunate  as  to  have  made  the  various  senses  clear 
to  my  reader,  in  which  the  words  tradition  and  catholic 
have  been  used,  and  their  true  signification,  he  will  be  in 
no  danger  from  the  juggling  dexterity  of  Dr.  Milner.  Let 
it  be  proved  that  'traditions"  have  come  from  Christ  and  liis 
Apostles,  and  we  receive  and  embrace  them.  Let  it  be 
proved  that  the  Roman  communion  is  exclusively  Christ's 
holy,  catholic,  and  apostolic  Church,  and  his  reasoning  will 
then  be  just  and  consistent. 

I  begin  with  his  quotation  from  Blackstone'sCommentaries 
on  the  lex  non  scripia.     There  must  undoubtedly  have  been 
unwritten  law  in  the  Church,  as  Blackstone  defines  unwrit- 
ten law  in  Enfjland  :  "1.   General  customs  ;   whicli  are  the 
universal  rule  of  the  whole  kingdom,  and  form  the  common 
law  in  its  stricter  and  more  usual  signification  ;  2.  j)articu- 
lar  customs ;  which  for  the  most  part  aftect  only  the  inhabi- 
tants   of  particular  districts ;     3.  certain    particular   laws ; 
which  by  custom  are  adopted   and  used   by  some  particular 
courts  of  pretty  general  and  extensive  jurisdiction. "f     But 
Blackstone  limits  his  meaning  by  various  cautions.     "  Tiie 
authority  of  these  maxims  rests  entirely,"  he  says,  "  upon 
general  reception  and  usage;  and  the  only  method  of  proving 
that  this  or  tliat  maxim  is  a  rule  of  the  common  law,  is  by 
showinsj  that  it  hath  been  alwavs  the  custom  to  observe  it." 
Even  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  IMihior,  whore  the  learn- 
ed commentator  speaks  of  the  judges  as  "depositaries  of  the 
laws,"  and  "  livino;  oracles  who  must  decide  in  all  cases  of 
doubt,  and  are  bound  by  an  oath  to  decide  according  to  the 
law  of  the  land,"  Blackstone  argues  that  if  their  decision  be 


*  Let.  X. 


t  Blackstone,  Com.  Intiod.  sec.  iii. 


I 


DR.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


77 


"  contrary  to  reason,  much  more  if  it  he  clearly  contrary  to  the 
divine  law — it  is  not  the  established  custom  of  the  realm,  as  has 
been  erroneously  determined."  Apply  this,  mutatis  mutandis , 
to  the  Christian  Church,  and  it  will  be  seen,  that  our  XXth 
and  XXXI Vth  Articles  are  based  upon  exactly  the  same 
principles.  Is  it  not  passing  strange  that  Dr.  Milner  should 
have  so  presumed  on  the  ignorance  of  his  readers,  as  to  quote 
Blackstone's  Commentaries  !  Let  any  one  read  the  first  and 
second  sections,  as  well  as  the  tliird,  of  his  Introduction,  and 
he  will  see  how  far  the  English  judge  was  from  acknow- 
ledging the  claims  of  Rome.  But  by  garbled  extracts  any  wri- 
ter miry  be  made  to  prove  what  was  farthest  from  his  thoughts. 
In  speaking  of  the  Roman  law,  Blackstone  condemns  the 
practice  of  giving  to  rescripts  of  the  emperor  the  force  of 
perpetual  law  ;  and  then  he  adds — "  In  like  manner,  the 
canon  laws  or  decretal  epistles  of  the  popes,  are  all  of  them 
rescripts  in  the  strictest  sense.  Contrary  to  all  true  forms 
of  reasoning,  they  argue  from  particulars  to  generals."* 

Dr.  Milner  next  proceeds  to  show  that  Christ  did  com- 
mission his  Apostles ;  that  they  were  to  continue  this  com- 
mission to  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  that  they  and  their 
successors  constitute  the  ever-living  and  speaking  tribunal 
of  the  Church.  It  is  truly  delightful  to  find  a  passage  in  his 
book  so  unexceptionable.  It  is  true  that  connected  with  this 
passage  there  are  a  few  inuendoes  and  slight  assumptions  ; 
such  as  "  fifteen  hundred  years  before  Protestants  existed," 
and  "  the  Apostles,  before  they  separated  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel to  different  nations,  agreed  upon  a  short  symbol  or  pro- 
fession of  faith,  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  but  even  this, 
they  did  not  commit  to  writing."  The  whole  of  this  last 
assertion  is  very  doubtful,  lie  quotes  Rufinus  for  it,  a 
Latin  writer  of  rather  dubious  authority,  who  flourished 
about  .350  years  after  the  Apostles!  But  inuendoes  and  as- 
sumptions are  the  food  on  which  Dr.  Milner  lives,  and  we 
may  therefore  pardon  him. 

We  cannot,  however,  be  so  indulgent  as  to  his  assertion 
that  "during  the  first  five  ages  of  the  church,  no  less  than 
in  the  subsequent  ages,  the  unwritten  word,  or  tradition,  was 
held  in  equal  estimation  by  her  with  the  Scripture  itself. 


a 


*  Introd.  sect.  ii. 


78 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


I  shall  hope  to  show  the  contrary  by  the  very  writers  whom 
he  quotes,  but  quotes  imperfectly. 

He  begins  with  St.  Ignatius  ;  not  quoting  his  Epistles,  hut 
what  Eusebius  says  of'him.  Why  was  this?  Because  in 
the  whole  seven  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius  not  a  word  occurs 
alout  traditions.  The  narrative  of  Eusebius  indeed  states 
that  the  martyr  exhorted  the  several  cliurchcs  to  which  he 
wrote  ''to  adhere  firmly  to  the  traditions  of  the  Apostles;" 
that  is  to  what  the  Apostles  had  delivered  to  them  ;  and  then 
Eusebius  adds,  that  for  the  greater  security,  Ignatius  thought 
it  necessary  to  commit  what  he  had  said  to  writing.*  A 
strange  remark  this,  if  Eusebius  was  so  much  in  favour  of 
unwritten  traditions ! 

So  with  regard  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  Polycarp,  Dr.  Milner 
vaguely  remarks  that  "  the  same  sentiments  appear  in  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius;  and  also  in  iliose''  (!)  (as  if  there  were 
more  than  one)  "  of  his  fellow-martyr  St.  Polycarp,  the  angel 
of  the  church  of  Smyrna.  Rev.  ii.  8."  The  same  senti- 
ments  in  the  one  Epistle  of  St.  Polycarp,  as  in  the  seven  of 
St.  Ignatius !  Could  Dr.  Milner  have  read  them  and  have 
made  such  a  blunder  ?  In  the  only  extant  Epistle  of  St.  Po- 
lycarp, which  was  written  to  the  Philippians  when  he  sent 
them  the  collection  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  there  is 
not  a  word  about  traditions.  But,  though  silent  about  tradi- 
tions, he  speaks  in  it  of  St.  PauPs  Epistle  to  them  ;  quotes 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  as  Scripture,  expressing  his 
trust  that  they  were  iccll  exercised  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ; 
■  and  shows,  throughout,  his  own  fiimiliar  acqaintance  with 
the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter, 
and  St.  John.  This,  let  it  be  remembered,  was  probably  not 
later  than  a.  d.  lOS. 

Dr,  Milner's  next  witness  is  St.  Irena3us  ;  and  as  from  a 
cursory  and  superficial  inspection  of  the  passages  he  has 
quoted,  his  readers  may  consider  them  as  conclusive,  I  must 
take  the  pains  of  setting  before  them  a  summary  of  that  ven- 
erable father's  argument.  In  his  first  book,  he  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  Valentinian  heresy,  as  derived  from  Simon  the 
Magician.  The  second  book  contains  his  confutation  of  their 
errors.     In  the  third,  he  proceeds  to  exhibit  proofs  from  the 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  36. 


I 


DR.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


79 


Scriptures  that  the  Church  hath  received  from  the  Apostles 
and  distributed  to  her  children  the  only  true  and  life-giving 
faith.  And  then  he  adds  :  "  For  the  Lord  of  all  things  gave 
to  his  Apostles  the  power  of  the  gospel ;  by  whom  we  have 
known  the  truth,  that  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
to  whom  the  Lord  said,  '  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me, 
an  1  he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  me — and  Him  that  sent 
me.'  Luke  x.  IH."  He  then,  in  the  first  chapter,  speaks  of 
our  knowing  the  economy  of  our  salvation  "  by  no  other  than 
those  through  whom  the  gospel  came  to  us  ;  which  indeed 
they  then  preached,  and  afterwards  hy  the  icill  of  God  deliv- 
ered to  us  in  the  Scriptures^  to  be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of 
our  faith." 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  fragments,  gleaned  from  sub- 
sequent Greek  writers,  the  original  work  of  St.  Irenseus  is 
unhappily  lost.  It  is  "  handed  down"  to  us  only  in  a  barba- 
rous Latin  translation,  which  often  obscures  the  sense.  This 
any  one  may  see  by  comparing  it  with  so  much  of  the  Greek 
as  time  has  spared.  Yet  even  the  Latin  in  the  last  sentence 
quoted,  in  scripturis  nobis  tradiderunt,  shows  that  the  "  tra- 
ditions of  the  apostles,"  that  is,  ichat  the  apostles  delivered, 
having  frst  heen  preached,  was  afterwards,  as  far  as  regards 
doctrine,  hy  Divine  direction  committed  to  writing. 

St.  Irenaeus  proceeds  to  say  that  "  Matthew  among  the 
Hebrews  published  the  Scripture  of  the  gospel  in  their  own 
language,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the  gospel 
in  Rome,  and  laying  the  foundation  of  that  church.  After 
their  departure,  Mark  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter 
delivered  to  us  in  writing  (Lat.  j)er  scripta  nobis  tradidit) 
what  Peter  had  preached.  Luke  also,  the  follower  of  Paul, 
deposited  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached  by  him.  After- 
wards John,  likewise  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  lean- 
ed upon  his  bosom,  set  forth  the  gospel,  while  he  dwelt  at 
Ephesus." 

Let  me  here  ask  what  becomes  of  Dr.  Milner's  assertion, 
in  this  tenth  letter,  that  the  Canon  of  Scripture  was  not  set- 
tled till  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  ?  We  here  find  a 
Bishop  of  the  second  century  giving  this  account  of  the  four 
gospels,  and  quoting  familiarly  in  his  writings  almost  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament !  St.  Irenseus  often  speaks 
with   the  greatest  reverence  of  both  the  Old  and  New,  as 


r>in"i  I 


r 


80 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Divine  Scriptures,  the  Oracles  of  God,  and  Scriptures  of 
the  Lord.  And  so  in  the  following  passages  :  "  Since  there- 
fore the  Scriptures  in  general,  both  Prophetic  and  Evangelic, 
are  open  and  clear  and  may  he  heard  of  all,  though  all  do  not 
believe,"  <Scc.  And  again  :  *'  With  our  assertions  agree  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles,  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  Prophets,  the  dictation  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  ministration  of  the  Law."*  The  Valentinians  he 
says,  in  another  place,  *•  endeavour  by  perverted  transla- 
tions and  false  interpretations  to  create  arinruments  not  only 
from  the  Evangelic  and  Apostolic  wTitings,  but  also  from 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets."f  These  expressions  show  that 
Irenrcus  had  a  code  or  collection  of  the  Gospels  and  Apos- 
tolical Epistles,  as  well  as  of  the  Law  aild  the  Prophets. 
But  this  1  mention  incidentally  ;  not  meaning  to  divert  the 
reader's  attention  from  the  point  oi  nnwrilfen  tradition  which 
is  now  under  examination,  and  to  which  therefore  I  nowt. 
return. 

In  the  second  chapter  of  his  third  book  Irena:us  observes 
that  the  Heretics  being  convicted  by  the  Scriptures,  accuse 
the  Scriptures  themselves  as  incorrect,  without  authority, 
and  contradictory,  so  that  the  truth  cannot  be  discovered  from 
them  by  any  who  are  ignorant  of  tradition.  For  it  was  not 
delivered  in  writing,  but  by  word  of  mouth.  For  which  rea- 
son Paul  said,  "  We  speak  wi.sdom  among  them  that  are  per- 
fect :  yet  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world."  1  Cor.  ii.  6.  This 
wisdom,  each  one  of  them  says,  is  that  which  he  has  found. 
It  is  sometimes  in  Valentinus,  sometimes  in  Marcion,  some- 
times in  Cerinthus,  sometimes  in  Basil  ides,  sometimes  in 
every  objector,  each  one  making  himself  the  rule  of  truth. 
But  when  we  challencre  them  to  that  tradition  which  is  from 
the  Apostles,  aiul  which  is  preserved  in  the  Churches  by  the 
successions  of  Presbyters,  they  then  are  opposed  to  tradi- 
tion, sayinir  that  thev  are  wiser  not  onlvthan  the  Presbvters, 
but  even  than  the  Apostles,  and  that  they  have  found  out 
the  sincere  truth  ;  for  the  Apostles  mixed  many  things  that 
were  legal,  with  the  words  of  the  Saviour;  and  not  only  the 


*  Iren.  adv.  Hacr.  ed.  Grabe,  lib.  ii.  c.  4G  and  66.     Ed.  Massuef, 
lib.  ii.  c.  27  and  35. 

t  Ibid.  lib.  i.  ed.  Grabe,  c.  i.  6.     Ed.  Massuet,  c.  iii.  6. 


H 


i 


DR.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


81 


Apostles  but  even  the  Lord  himself;  so  that  they,  (the  here- 
tics), alone  know  the  hidden  mystery,  undoubtedly,  purely, 
and  sincerely.  Thus  it  happens  that  they  consent  neither 
to  the  Scriptures  nor  tradition:  In  consequence  of  such 
conduct,  the  good  father  compares  them  to  slippery  serpents ; 
and  he  therefore  proceeds  to  argue,  in  the  third  chapter,  from 
the  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  manifested  in  the  whole  world, 
and  in  every  Church. 

"  We  can  enumerate  those,"  he  says,  "  who,  by  the 
Apostles  were  established  Bishops  in  the  Churches  and  their 
successors  even  to  our  time,  who  have  never  taught  or  known 
the  ravings  of  these  men.  If  the  Apostles  had  known  any 
hidden  mysteries  which  they  taught  only  to  the  perfect, 
would  they  not  have  delivered  them  to  the  persons  to  whom 
they  committed  the  Churches?"  He  then  singles  out  the 
Roman  Church  and  names  twelve  Bishops,  from  Linus  to 
Eleutherius,  who  was  Bishop  when  he  wrote.  By  this  suc- 
cession the  faith  which  had  been  delivered  to  the  Church  by 
the  Apostles  had  been  continued  even  to  his  day.*  He  next 
mentions  Polycarp  as  not  only  taught  by  Apostles,  but  con- 
stituted by  them  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Smyrna,  whom 
Irenceus  had  seen,  "  wiio  came  to  Rome  when  Anicetus  was 
Bishop,  and  there  converted  many  of  these  heretics  preaching 
only  that  one  and  only  truth  which  he  had  received  from  the 
Apostles  and  delivered  to  the  Church.  All  the  Churches  in 
Asia  bear  testimony  to  these  things  and  so  they  who  have 
hitherto  succeeded  Polycarp.  The  Church  of  Ephesus  also, 
founded  by  Paul,  and  where  John  resided  even  to  the 
times  of  Trajan,  is  a  true  witness  of  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles." 

"  We  must,  therefore,"  he  observes  in  the  fourth  chapter, 
"  not  look  for  the  truth  amonjr  others,  but  take  it  from  the 
Church,  since  the  Apostles  made  tiiat  their  rich  depositary. 
The  Church  is  the  entrance  into  life  and  all  the  rest  are 
thieves  and  robbers.  If  any  dispute  arises,  even  on  a  small 
point,  ought  we  not  to  recur  to  the  most  ancient  Churches  in 
which  the  Apostles  were  conversant  ?     Even  if  the  Apostles 

*  Earn  quam  habet  ah  Apostolis  Traditionem,  et  annuntiatam  homin- 
ibus  fidem  per  successiones  Episcoporuni  pervenientem  usque  ad  nos. 
Iren.  ed.  Grabe,  p.  200.     Ed.  Massuet,  p.  175. 


82 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


had  not  left  us  the  Scriptures,  ought  we  not  to  follow  the 
order  of  that  tradition  which  they  delivered  to  the  same  per- 
sons to  whom  they  committed  the  Churches  ?  But  many 
nations*  of  Barbarians  who  believe  in  Christ,  assent  to  this 
regulation,  having  salvation  written  not  on  paper  and  with 
ink,  but  in  their  hearts  by  the  Spirit,  diligently  keeping  the 
old  tradition,  believing  in  one  God,  the  Maker  of  Heaven 
and  Earth,  and  of  all  things  that  are  therein,  through  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  God.  He,  on  account  of  his  most  eminent 
love  towards  the  work  of  his  own  hands,  vouchsafed  to  be 
born  of  a  virgin,  uniting  in  himself  man  to  God,  suffered  un- 
der Pontius  Pilate,"'  &;c.  These  were  the  truths  which  the 
Valentinians  denied,  but  which  the  Barbarians  believed — 
"  Barbarians  without  letters  and  ignorant  of  our  speech,  but 
most  wise  on  account  of  their  faith,  and  as  regards  thought, 
and  practice,  and  manner  of  life.  If  any  one  should  make 
known  to  them  in  their  own  language  these  inventions  of  the 
heretics,  they  would  stop  their  ears  and  flee  far  away,  not 
enduring  even  to  hear  such  blasphemous  talk.  Thus  by 
that  old  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  they  would  not  receive 
into  the  conception  of  their  minds  any  thing  so  monstrous." 
Such  is  the  argument  of  Irenoeus  with  the  Valentinians; 
an  impious  sect  who  could  hardly  be  called  Christians,  be- 
cause they  denied  that  the  God  of  the  Jews  was  the  same  as 
the  God  of  the  Christians.  He  pressed  them  with  proofs  from 
the  Gospels  first  preached  by  the  Apostles,  and  tlien  by  Di- 
vine direction  committed  to  writinij,  that  the  God  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  the  God  of  the  New.  To  this  they  replied 
by  vilifying  the  Scriptures,  asserting  that  the  truth  could  not 
be  discovered  from  them  without  ti'adition,  and  that  that  tra- 
dition was  such  only  as  the  Valentinians  added  in  explana- 
tion of  them. — Very  well,  rejoins  Irenaeus,  let  us  appeal 
to  tradition  ;  but  what  tradition  shall  it  be  ?  Not  surely  the 
tradition  of  Valentine,  who  came  to  Rome  so  late  as  under 
Hyginus  the  eighth  Bishop  of  that  See,  but  the  tradition  of 
the  Apostles,  handed  down  in  the  Church  by  a  continual 
succession  of  Bishops  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Even  if 
the  Apostles  had  left  us  no  Scriptures,  we  should  have  had  this 
tradition  to  guard  us  from  your  errors ;  and  that  it  would 
have  been  effectual  is  evident  from  the  example  of  those  ig- 
norant Barbarians,  who  have  been  converted  to  the  Christian 


DR.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


83 


faith  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  who,  if  they  were  to 
understand  your  blasphemies,  would  stop  their  ears  and  flee 
from  you. 

Is  not  this  a  fair  statement  of  the  argument  ?  What  then 
do  the  words  of  Irenseus  prove  about  unwritten  tradition  as 
equal  in  value  to  the  Bible  ?  Even,  says  Irenseus,  if  the 
Apostles  had  not  left  us  the  Scriptures.  Dr.  Milner  prints 
these  words  in  capital  letters.  But  the  argument  is  just 
upon  a  par  with  that  of  the  desolate  island,  which  we  hear 
from  other  quarters — if  men  were  cast  upon  a  desert  island 
without  a  priest,  could  they  make  one  ?  If  men  were  cast  there 
without  a  Bible — what  then  ?  Why,  they  must  do  as  well  as 
they  could,  remember  it  as  well  as  the}'  could,  and  comfort 
themselves  with  the  thought,  that  the  Providence  who  had  cast 
them  there  would  not  require  what  they  had  no  power  to  per- 
form. Blessed  be  God,  ours  is  no  desert  island  without  priest 
or  Bible  !  There  is  no  power  which  can  take  either  from  us. 
We  have  the  Bible ;  and  we  have  also  the  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession ;  and  the  traditive  interpretation  of  the  Church,  not 
locked  up  from  the  laity,  but  brought  home  to  their  under- 
standing and  their  affections  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Tertullian  was  somewhat  later  than  Irenseus,  but  was 
cnfraired  in  similar  controversies  with  the  Gnostics  of  his 
lime.  The  unfairnes^s  of  Dr.  Milner  with  regard  to  this 
author,  consists  in  selecting  and  arranging  his  quotations  so 
as  to  make  his  readers  believe  that  Tertullian  meant  to  de- 
press the  Scriptures  and  exalt  unwritten  tradition.  To 
illustrate  my  meaning,  I  quote  the  following  passage,  which 
occurs  at  the  beojinning  of  his  treatise  on  the  prescriptions 
of  heretics,  the  very  same  treatise  which  Dr.  Milner  has  so 
largely  cited.  "  These  wonderers  {jiiiriones  in  Semler's  edi- 
ation,  infirmiores  in  that  of  Rigaltius, — these  weaker  men*) 
are  built  up  to  their  own  ruin  by  certain  persons  who  have 
been  caught  by  the  heresy.  Why,  say  they,  does  he  or  she, 
the  most  faithful,  the  most  prudent,  the  most  experienced  in 
the  church,  pass  over  to  their  side  ?  Who  that  says  this  does 
not  return  answer  to  himself,  that  they  on  whom  heresy  can 
have  such  influence,  are  not  to  be  estimated  as  prudent,  or  faith- 
ful, or  experienced  ? What  if  some  bishop,  or  deacon,  or 

*  In  either  case  speaking  contemptuously  of  the  heretics. 


T 


84 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


widow,  or  virgin,  or  doctor  or  martyr,  should  fall  from  the 
faith,  do  heresies  thereby  seem  to  acquire  truth  ?  Do  we 
try  the  faith  by  the  persons,  or  the  persons  by  the  faith  ? 
No  one  is  wise,  no  one  is  faithful,  no  one  superior,  unless  he 
be  a  Christian  ;  and  no  one  is  a  Christian  but  '  he  that  en- 
dureth  to  the  end.'  "*  Now,  applicable  as  I  may  think  this 
passage  to  Mr.  Newman,  or  to  any  others  who  have  sacri- 
legiously sullered  themselves  to  be  re-baptized  and  re- 
ordained,  as  if  they  were  not  in  the  Catholic  Church  before 
they  entered  your  communion,  would  you  say  that  1  had 
acted  fairly  towards  them,  or  you,  or  my  author,  were  I  to 
quote  this  passage  as  a  conclusive  argument  ?  Would  it 
not  be  a  perversion,  if  I  should  seek  to  prove  your  heresy  or 
their  apostacy,  on  the  authority  of  Tcrtullian  ?  And  yet 
this  would  be  nothing  more  than  what  Dr.  Milner  has  done 
with  regard  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
catholicity  of  our  communion. 

Tertullian  commenting  on  the  words  of  our  Saviour, 
seek  and  ye  shall  find,  wiiich  the  heretics  had  wrongly 
applied,  says,  (cap.  10.)  that  the  reason  of  that  saying 
may  be  considered  under  three  heads,  the  iking  sought, 
and  the  time  and  mode  of  scckino;.  We  must  sock  what 
Christ  instituted,  and  seek  until  we  find  it.  Till  we  be- 
lieve, we  have  not  found  it.  Shall  we  seek  (cap.  1*2) 
it  amonij*  the  heretics  who  are  the  enemies  of  the  fixith  ? 
The  rule  of  faith  (cap.  13)  requires  us  to  believe  in  one 
God,  &;c.  And  then  he  gives  in  substance  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  which  the  Gnostics  of  course  denied.  After  which 
he  proceeds  to  say,  (cap.  14,)  that  we  are  saved  by  faith,  not 
by  knowledge.  To  be  exercised  in  the  Scriptures  may  pro- 
ceed only  from  curiosity  and  the  pride  of  knowledge,  not 
from  faith.  While  they  are  still  seeking  they  do  not  pos- 
sess ;  and  if  they  do  possess,  they  do  not  believe.  They  are 
not  Christians.  They  are  conscious  to  themselves  that  they 
are  not  Christians.  Coming  with  such  deceit,  of  what  fjiith 
do  they  dispute  ?  What  truth  can  be  protected  by  liars  ? — 
Such  is  the  context;  and  then  follows  the  passage  which  Dr. 
Milner  has  paraphrased  to  suit  his  own  purposes,  but  which 
I  shall  more  strictly  translate.  All  I  ask  of  my  readers  is, 
to  compare  my  translation  with  his. 

"  But  they^'  (the  heretics)  *'  7nake  use  of  the  Scriptures 
*  Tertul.  de  Prsescr.  Hoeret.  c.iii. 


I 


I 


DR.  MILNER  S   QUOTATIONS. 


85 


and  argue  from  the  Scriptures  !  Of  course :  from  what  else 
could  they  argue  concerning  matters  of  faithj  unless  from  the 
writings  of  faith  ? 

Cap.  15. "  We  come  then  to  the  point  at  issue.  The  preced- 
ing parts  of  this  our  treatise  have  been  directed  and  arranged 
for  this  very  end  ;  that  we  should  hence  come  to  that  con- 
flict to  which  our  adversaries  challenge  us.  They  spread 
the  Scriptures  as  a  snare,  and  by  this  their  audacity  they 
forthwith  stagger  some.  In  the  very  conflict  they  weary  the 
fmUf  capture  the  iveak,  and  those  tcho  are  neither  weak  nor 
strong  they  dismiss  with  douht.  At  this  very  step,  therefore, 
do  we  erect  our  principal  harrier.  We  will  nx)t  admit  them  to 
that  disputation  concerning  the  Scriptures.  If  this  their 
strength  consist  4n  possessing  them,  then  he  who  has  full 
possession  of  the  Scriptures,  ought  to  watch  and  guard 
against  the  admission  of  any  one  to  the  same  privilege  who 
can  have  no  right  to  such  possession. 

Cap.  16.  "I  might  seem  to  infer  this  from  a  motive  of  distrust, 
or  a  desire  of  taking  another  position,  if  reason  did  not  demand 
it.  But,  in  the  first  place,  our  faith  requires  obedience  to  the 
Apostle's  mandate,  not  to  engage  in  strifes  of  words — not  to 
accustom  our  ears  to  novelties — not  to  contend  with  a  heretic 
after  one  admonition* — not  after  disputation.  Thus  does  he 
forbid  disputation,  assigning  rebuke  as  the  cause  for  encounter- 
ing a  heretic,  and  this  alone  because  he  is  not  a  Christian,  nor 
seems  capable  of  being  corrected  as  a  Christian,  once  and 
a^ain,  or  before  two  or  three  witnesses. f  He  is  to  be  cor- 
rected, in  order  that  there  may  be  no  dispute  with  him. 
The  next  reason  is,  because  controversy  about  the  Scriptures 
is  of  710  avail,  unless  plainly  that  one  should  uiidergo  a  turn- 
ing  of  his  stomach  or  his  hrain. 

Cap.  17.  "  Heresy  itself  does  not  receive  some  Scriptures, 
Those  which  it  does  receive,  it  changes  by  additions  or  muti- 
lations to  serve  its  own  purposes.  If  it  receives,  it  does  not 
receive  entire  ;  or  if  to  any  extent  it  prefers  the  entire,  it  then 
perverts  the  meaning  by  its  various  expositions.  An  adulte- 
rating sense  prevents  the  truth  from  being  heard,  as  much  as  a 
corrupted  reading.  Various  prejudices  necessarily  hinder  the 
acknovvledgment^f  that  by  which  they  are  defeated.  They 
rely  upon  their  own  false  fabrications,  or  what  they  have  taken 
*^  1  Tim.  *i.  3      Titus  iii.  10  t  St.  Matt,  xviii.  16. 


86 


REPLY  TO  MILNER's  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


DR.  MILNER's  QUOTATIONS. 


87 


from  ambiguous  phraseology.  O  thou  who  art  most  exercised 
in  the  Scriptures,  what  wilt  thou  promote  ?  What  thou  defend- 
est  thine  adversary  will  deny.  What  thou  shalt  deny,  is  de- 
fended. Thou  wilt  lose  nothing  but  thy  voice  in  the  conten- 
tion.     Thou  wilt  gain  nothing  but  bile  from  the  blasphemy. 

Cat.  18.  *' If  there  be  any  one  for  whose  sake  thou  descend- 
est  into  the  conflict  of  the  Scriptures,  that  thou  mayest  confirm 
one  who  doubts,  will  it  bend  him  to  the  truth,  or  will  it  not 
rather  sink  him  into  heresy  ?  Moved  by  this  very  thing,  that 
he  sees  thou  hast  promoted  nothing  by  placing  thyself  on 
an  equal  footing  of  denying  or  defending  what  is  maintamed 
on  either  side,  he  will  certainly  go  away  more  doubtful  from 
this  equal  altercation,  utterly  unable  to  judge  which  is  here- 
sy. It  enables  the  adversaries  themselves  to  retort  upon  us. 
Of  necessity  they  will  say,  that  it  is  rather  we  who  adul- 
terate the  Scriptures,  and  charge  with  falsehood  their  expo- 
sitions,  which  are  only  for  the  defence  of  truth. 

Cap.  19.  "  Therefore  ihcremusihenocliaUenghigtoihe  Scrip- 
tures, nor  any  cxnnhat  arrayed  where  the  chances  of  victory  are 
nothing,  or  more  or  less  uncertain.  For  although  a  conference  on 
the  Scriptures  should  not  so  terminate  as  to  leave  each  side  equal, 
yet  the  order  of  things  required  that  what  is  now  only  a  subject 
of  disputation  should  he  established  as  a  previous  proposition. 
To  whom  does  the  faith  itself  belong  ?  Whose  are  the  Scrip- 
tures ?  From  whom,  and  through  ichom,  and  when,  and  to 
whom,  was  that  discipline  delivered  (Lat. — sit  tradita  discipli- 
na)  by  tchich  men  become  Christians  ?  For  ivhcrever  it  shall 
appear  that  the  truth  of  the  Christian  discipline  and  faith  exists, 
there  will  be  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  expositions, 
and  of  all  the  traditions  of  the  Christians," 

I  would  speak  with  all  due  modesty  of  my  own  trans- 
lation of  the  difficult  Latinity  of  this  admirable  author,  and 
with  the  utmost  charity  of  Dr.  Milner ;  yet  when  the  read- 
er  sees  that  the  parts  which  I  have  marked  with  italics, 
are  all  that  he  chose  to  take  ;  when  he  sees  that  he  awk- 
wardly dovetailed  together  tlie  end  of  the  fourteenth,  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth,  and  a  scrap  of  the  sixteenth,  with 
the  nineteenth  chapter  ;  when  he  secF-.  that  he  so  interpret- 
ed the  language  as  entirely  to  change  the  meaning  of  his 
author,  and  make  parts  appear  continuous  and  connected 
which  are    widely  separated    and  distinct ;    when    he  sees 


* 


that  all  this  was  done  for  such  persons  as  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
James  Brown,  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Topham,  and  friend  Ran- 
kin and  his  wife,  who  could  not  possibly  go  to  the  origin- 
al and  detect  Dr.  Milner's  dishonesty  ;  I  ask  him  seriously 
to  reflect  whether  a  cause  which  must  be  supported  by 
such  artifice,  can  be  the  cause  of  God's  truth  ! 

It  is  by  such  methods  that  the  venerable  writers  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church  have  been  injured,  and  an  unfounded  prejudice 
against  them  has  been  created,  which  has  led  to  the  neg- 
lect of  their  works  in  modern  times.  But  when  Jewel, 
Andrews,  Hooker,  Morton,  Pearson  and  the  two  Casaubons 
wrote,  and  I  might  add  many  more  to  the  list,  the  state 
of  things  was  far  different.  Dr.  Milner  sneers  at  them  in 
a  note.\s  having  "  laboured  hard  to  press  the  fathers  into 
tlieir  service." — Press  quoth  he  !  I  would  be  glad  to  know 
what  greater  presser  there  ever  was  than  he.  He  has 
pressed  six  whole  chapters  of  Tertullian,  into  half  a  page, 
and  pressed  them  so   effectually  as   to  press  out  all  their 

real  meaning. 

His  next  quotation  from  Tertullian,  occupies  in  the 
original  six  chapters  more  !  It  is  truly  curious  as  a  spe- 
cimen of  pressing;  and  I  will  therefore  proceed  in  the 
analysis  of  the  treatise  on  prsescriptions ;  more,  however, 
to  rescue  the  author  from  unjust  imputations,  than  from 
any  feeling  of  obligation  to  give  further  proof  of  Dr.  Mil- 
ner's  dexterity. 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  nineteenth  chapter,  it  was 
'very  fiir  from  Tertullian's  intention  to  represent  the  Scrip- 
tures as  insufficient  in  themselves  to  prove  the  truth  of 
Christian  doctrine,  or  to  defend  the  Church  against  heresy. 
All  he  asserted  was,  that  the  adversaries  were  unworthy 
of  such  a  privilege  ;  that  they  would  use  it  for  dishonest 
purposes  ;  and  that  Christians  would  gain  nothing  by  the 
contest.  He  proceeds  therefore  to  point  out  a  more  com- 
pendious  method  of  dealing  with  them. 

Cap.  20.  "  Let  our  Lord  Christ  be  permitted  to  say  who  he 
is,  of  what  God  he  is  the  Son,  of  what  material  he  is  man  and 
God,  of  what  fliith  he  is  the  teacher,  of  what  reward  he  is 
the  surety,"  &;c. — all  questions  of  the  Gnostic  heresy—what 
Apostles  he  commissioned  to  baptize  all  nations,  their  be- 
ginning in   Judea,  departure   into  the   world,  and  promul- 


88 


REPLY  TO  MILNER's  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


DR.  MILNER's  quotations. 


89 


gating  every  where  the  same  doctrine  of  the  same  faith— 
the  churches  they  founded,  other  churches  formed  from 
these — so  many  churches  constituting  hut  one — the  com- 
munication of  peace,  the  appellation  of  fraternity,  the  one 
tradition  of  the  same  sacrament. 

Cap.  21.  <'  Hence  we  direct  our  prrcscription.  If  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  sent  his  Apostles  to  preach,  then  no  other  preach- 
ers are  to  be  received  but  those  whom  Christ  instituted."  .  .  . 
What  they  preached  to  the  churches  which  they  founded,  as 
well  by  word  of  mouth,  as  afterwards  by  their  epistles,  is  what 
Christ  had  revealed  to  them.  We  are  to  hold  what  the 
churches  received  from  the  Apostles,  what  the  Apostles  re- 
ceived from  Christ,  what  Christ  received  from  God.  It  re- 
mains for  us  to  show  whether  our  doctrine  is  from  the  tradition 
of  the  Apostles,  and  consequently  all  other  from  falsehood. 

Cap.  22.  What  do  they  say  to  invalidate  our  prtescrip- 
tion  ?  ^  Sometimes  that  the  Apostles  did  vot  know  all  things  ; 
sometimes  that  the  Apostles  did  know  all  things,  but  did  not 
deliver  (tradidisse)  all  things  to  all  persons.  In  both,  they 
cast  the  blame  on  Christ,  who  sent  either  badly  taught  or 
dissembling  Apostles.  Will  any  one  in  his  senses  believe 
them  ignorant,  when  he  considers  their  intercourse  with 
their  Master?  Was  Peter  ignorant,  who  was  called  the 
rock,  had  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  the  power 
of  binding  and  loosing?  Was  John  ignorant,  the  beloved 
disciple,  who  leaned  on  his  master's  bosom,  and  to  whom 
alone  the  Lord  revealed  the  treachery  of  Judas  ?  Wcrp 
they  ignorant  who  witnessed  the  transfiguration  ?  Were 
they  ignorant  on  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  to  lead 
them  into  all  truth  ? 

Cap.  23.  But  Peter  and  his  companions  were  reprehend, 
ed  by  Paul  ;  and  this  objection  is  considered  at  some  length 
by  Tertullian,  in  this  and  the  next  chapter,  and  shown  to'^bc 
irrelevant  to  the  subject.  He  then  (Cap.  2.5)  proceeds  to  the 
second  contradictory  assertion,  that  the  Apostles  were  710/ 
Ignorant,  and  did  not  preach  dillerent  doctrine,  but  that  they 
did  not  choose  to  reveal  all  things  to  all ;  for  St.  Paul  said  to 
Timothy,  Keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thee,  &c.  To  this 
he  replies,  that  what  St.  Paul  committed  to  Timothy  he  com- 
mitted before  many  witnesses  j  and  charged  him  to  commit 
to  faithful  men  ;  who  should  teach  others  also. 


I 


He  proceeds  to  say  (Cap.  26)  that  the  Gospel  is  not  to  be 
ministered  inconsiderately  ;  that  pearls  are  not  to  be  cast  be- 
fore swine,  nor  that  which  is  holy  given  to  the  dogs  ;  but  that 
our  Lord  himself  commanded  them  to  publish  on  the  house- 
tops what  they  had  heard  in  secret,  and  to  place  their  light 
upon  a  candlestick,  not  under  a  bushel.  If  the  Apostles  did 
not  do  this,  they  either  neglected,  or  did  not  understand  their 
duty.  He  appeals  to  their  intrepidity  and  honesty,  to  show 
that  with  them  there  was  no  suppression  of  the  truth  ;  and  he 
adds  that  they  remembered  our  Lord's  injunction,  Let  your 
yea  be  yea,  and  your  nay,  nay. 

Cap.  27.  If  then  it  be  incredible,  either  that  the  Apostles 
were  ignorant,  or  that  they  did  not  publish  the  whole  arrange- 
ment of  the  rule  to  all,  could  the  churches  have  misinterpreted 
their  meaning  ?  The  Galatians  and  Corinthians  were  blamed 
by  the  Apostles;  but  this  specious  objection  only  proves 
that  they  were  corrected  ;  and  the  other  churches  commended 
by  the  Apostles  are  now  united  with  them  in  the  same  faith. 
Cap.  28.  But  supposing  that  they  had  all  erred! 
This  supposition  would  impugn  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Steward 
of  God  ;  and  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ  would  have  neglected 
his  office.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  so  many  and  so  great 
churches  should  all  mistake  with  regard  to  the  one  faith  ? 
should  all  agree  in  one  mistake?  Error  would  have  pro- 
duced a  diversity  of  doctrine  in  the  churches.  That  which 
is  found  to  be  one  among  so  many  cannot  be  an  error. 

Cap.  29.  But  granting  that  some  how  or  other  there  was 
an  error,  how  could  it  exist  before  there  were  any  heresies  ? 
Truth  perhaps  was  waiting  for  some  M arcionites  or  Valentini- 
ans  to  deliver  her  from  her  thraldom  !  In  the  mean  time  the 
Gospel  was  badly  preached.  What !  so  many  millions  badly 
baptized  ;  so  many  works  of  faith  badly  ministered  ;  so  many 
virtues,  so  many  gifts  of  grace  badly  wrought;  so  many  sacer- 
dotal and  ministerial  offices  badly  performed  ;  in  fine,  so  many 
acts  of  martyrdom  suffered  badly  and  in  vain  !  .  ,  .  .  Were 
there  any  Christians  before  Christ  ?  or  any  heresies  before  true 
doctrine?    In  all  things  truth  precedes  imitation." 

Cap.  30.  At  that  "time,  where  was  Marcion  the  Stoic,  or 
Valentine  thePlatonist  ?  They  lived  under  Antoninus,  and  pro- 
fessed, in  the  Roman  Church,  and  under  the  episcopate  of  the 
blessed  Eleutherius,  almost  to  believe  the  Catholic  faith,  until, 
on  account  of  their  restless  curiosity,  by  which  they  corrupt- 


90 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


ed  the  brethren,  they  were  once  or  twice  ejected  from  the 
Church.  He  then  proceeds  to  expose  the  conduct  of  the 
heresiarchs;  after  which  he  adds  :  "  let  them  show  that  they 
are  new  Apostles,  that  Christ  has  again  descended,  again 
taught,  again  been  crucified,  again  risen  from  the  dead."  Let 
them  again  work  miracles  as  Apostles  were  wont  to  do. 
They  raised  the  dead,  but  these  kill  the  living. 

Cap.  31.  But  to  return  to  what  has  been  said  of  the  priority 
of  truth,  and  the  lateness  of  falsehood.  It  is  taught  in  the  par- 
able. The  Lord  had  sown  the  good  seed,  before  his  enemy 
the  devil  sowed  the  tares.  By  a  figure,  this  distinction  is 
applied  to  doctrines ;  for  elsewhere  the  word  of  God  is 
compared  to  seed,  so  that  it  is  manifest  from  the  very  order^ 
that  what  is  first  delivered  (quod  sit  prius  traditum)  is  of  the 
Lord  and  true.  That  is  foreign  and  false  which  is  brought  in 
last.  This  decision  will  remain  against  all  later  heresies 
whatsoever,  the  truth  of  which  no  continuance  and  firm  per- 
suasion can  ever  defend. 

Cap.  32.  "  If  any  heresies  dare  to  engraft  themselves 
on  the  Apostolic  age,  so  that  they  may  seem  to  have 
been  delivered  (traditne)  from  the  Apostles,  because  they 
existed  under  the  Apostles,  we  can  say.  Let  them  exhibit 
the  origin  of  their  churches ;  let  them  unroll  the  order  of 
their  Bishops,  and  show  by  successions  from  the  beginning 
downwards  that  their  first  Bishop  had  some  one  of  the 
Apostles  or  of  Apostolic  men,  some  one  at  least  who  had  con- 
tinued with  the  Apostles  for  his  offiainer  and  predecessor. 
In  this  way  the  Apostolic  churches  have  brought  down  their 
enrollment.  Thus  the  Church  of  the  Smyrnajans  produces 
Polycarp,  placed  there  by  John.  Thus  the  Church  of  the 
Romans  produces  Clement,  ordained  by  Peter.  So  in  like 
manner  can  the  rest  of  the  churches  exhibit  those  whom  the 
Apostles  constituted  in  the  Episcopacy,  as  the  propagators  of 
the  Apostolic  seed.  Let  the  heretics  feign  something  of  this 
sort,  for  what,  after  blasphemy,  are  they  not  permitted  to  do  ? 
By  all  their  feigning  they  will  effect  nothing.  Their  very 
doctrine,  compared  with  the  Apostolic,  shows  by  its  diversity 
and  contrariety,  that  no  Apostles  or  Apostolic  men  could  have 
been  its  authors  ;  for  as  the  Apostles  taught  nothing  different 
among  themselves,  so  the  Apostolic  men  could  not  have  uttered 
any  thing  in  opposition  to  the  Apostles  unless  they  had  separated 
from  them.    According  to  this  pattern  will  they  be  challenged 


DR.  MILNER's    quotations. 


91 


by  those  churches  which,  though  they  can  produce  no  Apos- 
tle or  Apostolic  man  as  their  founder,  because  they  are  much 
later,  and  are  daily  instituted,  yet  are  considered  as  not  less 
Apostolic,  for  their  agreement  in  the  same  faith,  and  the  con- 
sanjruinity  of  their  doctrine.  Thus  let  all  the  heresies,  being 
challenged  by  our  churches,  according  to  each  pattern, 
prove  themselves,  in  any  way  they  can  imagine,  to  be  Apos- 
tolic. They  neither  are  so,  nor  can  prove  themselves  to  be 
what  they  are  not ;  nor  are  they  received  to  peace  and  com- 
munion by  the  churches  which  are  in  any  manner  Apos- 
tolical." 

Tertullian  then  proceeds  in  the  next  three  chapters,  (33, 
34  and  35,)  to  show  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  that  ma- 
ny of  the  corrupt  doctrines  held  by  the  heretics  of  his  time, 
were  there  expressly  condemned  ;  and  that  such  as  are  not 
named  in  the  Apostolic  writings,  have  been  added  since  their 
time.  Having  done  this,  he  continues  in  the  36th  and  37th 
chapters  as  follows :  "  Come  then  thou  who  wouldest  exercise 
thy  curiosity  in  the  matter  of  thy  salvation,  pass  through  the 
Apostolic  Churches,  where  the  very  chairs  of  the  Apostles 
(cathedrje  apostolorum)  are  presiding  in  their  places, — where 
their  authentic  epistles  (literae)  are  still  read  publicly,  utter- 
ing their  voice,  and  representing  their  features.  Is  Achaia 
nearest  to  thee?  thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far 
from  Macedonia,  thou  hast  Philippi.  If  thou  canst  bend  thy 
steps  into  Asia,  thou  hast  Ephesus.  If  thou  art  in  the  vi^ 
cinity  of  Italy,  thou  hast  the  Roman  Church,  From  this 
source,  also,  authority  is  for  us  most  readily  established. 
Oh,  happy  Church,  for  which  the  Apostles  poured  forth  their 
whole  doctrine  with  thdr  blood  /  Where  Peter  suffered  a 
like  passion  loith  his  Lord ;  where  Paul  had  for  his  crown 
the  death  of  John ;  where  the  Apostle  John  was  immersed 
unhurt  in  burning  oil,  and  afterwards  exiled  to  the  island. 
Let  us  see  what  it  will  say,  what  it  will  teach.  It  bears  like 
testimony  with  the  African  Churches.  It  has  known  but 
one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  Universe,  and  Christ  Jesus,  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Son  of  God  the  Creator,  and  the 
Resurrection  of  the  Flesh.  It  mingles  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  with  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apos- 
tles. Thence  it  bears*  the  faith,  signs  with  water,  clothes  with 

»  Some  read  drinks,  potai  for  portat. 


92 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


the  Holy  Spirit,  feeds  with  the  Eucliarist,  exhorts  to  martyr- 
dom, and  receives  no  one  contrary  to  this  Institution."  After  a 
few  sentences,  on  the  degenerate  growth  of  heresy,  he  returns 
to  that  which  was  the  principal  scope  of  his  argument.     **  If 
these  things  are  so,  if  the  truth  is  adjudged  to  us  Avho  walk  ac- 
cording to  that  rule  which  the  Church  hath  '  handed  down' 
(tradidit)  from  the  Apostles,  the   Apostles  from  Christ,  and 
Christ  from  God,  then  the  reason  is  evident  of  our  original  pro- 
position, that  heretics  are  not  to  he  admitted  to  delate  withiis  con- 
cerning  the  Scriptures,  because  without  the  Scriptures  we  prove 
that  they  do  not  pertain  to  the  Scriptures.    For  il'  they  are  here- 
tics they  cannot  be  Christians  :  tiie  name  of  heretics  not  being 
had  from  Christ,  by  their  own  voluntary  admission.  Thus,  not 
being  Christians,  they  can  have  no  just  claim  to  the  Christian 
writings.      We  may  icith  propriety  say  to  them,  Who  are  you  ? 
When  and  whence  did  you  come  ?     When  you  are  not  mine, 
what  are  you  doing  zcith  mine  ?     By  w-hat  right  are  you,  Mar- 
cion,  felling  my  trees  ?     By  whose  permission,  Valentine,  do 
you   turn  the  waters  of  my  fountains  ?     By  what  power  do 
you,  Apelles,  move  my  landmarks  ?     Why  do  the  rest  of  you, 
at  your  pleasure,  sow  and  pasture  here  ?     It  is  my  property, 
I  have  long  been  in  p)Ossessio7U     I  have  the  valid  title-deeds 
from  the  very  authors  to  whom  the  estate  belonged.     I  am  the 
heir  of  the  Apostles.     As  they  have  ordered  by  their  will,  as 
they  have  left   in  trust,  as  they  have  established  under  oath, 
such  IS  my  tenure.     You,  certainly,  as  aliens  and  enemies,  they 
have  for  ever  disinherited  and  disowned.    Heretics  !  Whence 
comes  it  that  ye  are  aliens  and  enemies  of  the  Apostles, 
except  from  diversity  of  doctrine  ?     Which  doctrine,  every 
one  of  you,  of  his  own  will,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
Apostles,  have  either  produced  or  received." 

Such  is  the  sublime  and  eloquent  lancruageof  the  earliest 
of  the  Latm  Fathers,  from  which  Dr.  Milner  has  culled  a 
few  passages,  and  sewed  them  together,  like  the  fio-.leaves 
of  Paradise,  to  cover  his  nakedness.  They  prove  in°contest- 
ably  that  the  Scriptures  were  the  rule  of  faith,  and  that 
all  the  tradition  which  the  early  Church  regarded,  was 
the  traditive  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  the  sense  in  which 
It  was  understood  in  Achaia,  in  Macedonia,  in  Asia,  in  the 
whole  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  as  well  as  in  Africa, 
where  Tertullian  lived,  and  at  Rome,  which  to  that  part  of 
Atrica  was  most  easily  accessible. 


DR.  MILNER  S   QUOTATIONS. 


93 


As  to  the  book  "  de  Coron^  Militis,"  to  which  Dr.  Milner 
refers,  he  might  just  as  well  have  quoted  Hooker ;  for  the 
argument  in  both  is  precisely  similar.  In  a.  d.  201,  when 
Caracalla  and  Geta,  the  sons  of  Severus,  were  saluted,  the 
one  Augustus,  the  other  Caesar,  crowns  of  laurel  had  been 
distributed  to  the  Roman  soldiers  to  wear  upon  their  heads. 
A  Christian  soldier,  having  scruples  of  conscience,  held  the 
wreath  in  his  hand.  In  reply  to  the  Tribune  who  questioned 
him  for  disobeying  the  Emperor's  command,  he  only  said, 
*'I  am  a  Christian."  Tertullian  praises  him  for  this;  and 
as  other  Christians  had  not  had  such  scruples,  and  had  jus- 
tified their  conduct  by  saying  that  the  Sci'iptures  did  not 
forbid  their  wearing  crowns,  he  replies,  that  with  equal 
propriety  it  might  be  said  on  the  other  side,  that  it  was  not 
lawful  to  be  thus  crowned  because  the  Scriptures  did  not 
command  it.  He  then  goes  on  to  show,  "  at  great  length," 
as  Dr.  MUner  says,  that  the  discipline  of  the  Church  requires 
many  things  to  be  done  or  left  undone,  which  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Scriptures,  but  not  being  repugnant  to  them, 
may  be  enforced  on  the  authority  of  custom.  *'  If  no  Scrip- 
ture hath  determined  this,"  he  observes,  "  certainly  custom 
has  given  it  strength,  which  without  doubt  has  emanated 
from  tradition.  For  how  can  any  thing  be  brought  into  use 
(si  traditum  prius  non  est),  if  it  be  not  first  delivered  to 
us?"* 

It  is  precisely  what  is  taught  in  our  thirty-fourth  Article, 
which  refers,  as  I  have  shown  (p.  39),  to  Ecclesiastical 
Traditions,  and  not  to"  Traditions  divine  and  Apostolical.^^ 

Dr.  Milner  next  proceeds  to  bring  up  his  Greek  forces ; 
but  as  in  Greek  he  is  rather  feeble,  like  a  prudent  general, 
he  employs  them  sparingly.  Origen  is  introduced  with 
a  flourish  of  trumpets  as  "the  great  Biblical  Scholar;" 
but  the  extract  is  a  very  "  Goose-Gibbie"  of  a  man-at-arms,f 
taken,  not  from  his  author,  but  from  some  obscure  commoa- 
place,  and  dressed  up  for  the  occasion  in  a  full-sized  suit 
of  dragoon  armour.  Aye :  Origen  was  a  great  Bibli- 
cal scholar  !  and  a  great  Biblical  quoter  too !  for,  after 
a    most    attentive    perusal    of   all    his    works,    Griesbach 

*  De  Corona,  cap.  iii.  ' 

t  Old  Mortality,  chaps,  ii.  and  iii. 

5* 


94 


REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


DR.  MILNEr's   quotations. 


95 


thought    that   a    whole    New    Testament    might    be     made 
out    of    his    quotations.       But    why    not    tell     us    where 
this    small    sentence    was    to    be    found  ?      Why   obli<re 
us   to   hunt  through   four  folio  volumes  to  find  it  ?     Take 
it  as  Dr.   Milner  has    muffled    it  up,  and  to  what  does  it 
amount  ?      "  We    are    not  to  credit  those    who,  by  citing 
real  canonical   Scriptures,  seem  to  say.  Behold,  the  Word  is 
in  your  houses  ;  for  we  are  not  to  desert  our  frst  ecclesiasti- 
cal tradition,  nor  to  believe  otherwise  than  as  the  churches 
of  God  have,  in  their  perpetual  succession,  delivered  to  us." 
Here  it  is  in   the  buff-jerkin  of  his  own  Italics  ;  and  what 
does  it  prove,  excepting  that  the  canonical  Scriptures  are  to 
be  understood  according  to  the  traditive  interpretation  of  all 
the  churches  of  God  in  their  perpetual  succession    from  the 
very  first ;  a  proof  which  Chillingworth   allows,  but  which 
Mr.  Newman  has  endeavored  to  subvert,  because  he  clearly 
saw  that  it  was  fatal  to  his  newly-adopted  cause..    Origen 
was  an  honest  man,  and  therefore  a  good  witness  to  matters 
of  fact ;  but  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  his  im- 
agination was  very  apt  to  run  away  with  him.    He  was  excom- 
municated 200  years  after  his  death,  and  so  lost  his  canoni- 
zation.* 

The  quotations  from  Sts.  Basil,  Epiphanius  and  Chrysos- 
tom  are  sufficiently  pointed  out,  but  not  greatly  to  the  credit 
of  Dr.  Milner's  learning  or  honesty.  In  St.  Basil's  Trea- 
tise on  the  Holy  Ghost,  addressed  to  Amphilochius,  Bishop 
of  Iconium,  he  is  defending  the  variety  of  usage  in  the  dox- 
ology.  Glory  be  to  the  Father  with  (finu)  the  Son,  and  with 
((Tvv)  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  through  (dm)  the  Son,  and  in  (iv) 
the  Holy  Ghost.  He  had  been  charged  with  introducing 
a  foreign  usage,  not  only  novel,  but  incongruous  and 
inconsistent.  His  whole  treatise  therefore  turns  upon  the 
force  of  IN  and  with  as  applied  to  the  Holy  Ghost.f 
It  is  an  excellent  dissertation,  written  very  much  as  a 
member  of  the  English  Communion  would  now  write, 
and  quoting  copiously  the  same  texts  as  we  should  now 
quote,  to  prove  the  divinity,  personality,  and  agency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Having  in  the  2r)th  and  26th  chapters  de- 
fended the  use  of  in,  he  proceeds  in  the  27th  to  vindicate 

»  Socrates  H.  E.  lib.  vii.  c.  45. 
t  Op.  ed.  Bened.     Tom.  iu.  p.  3. 


'^ 


the  use  of  with.  It  is  from  this  chapter  that  Dr.  Milner,  or 
rather  the  common-place  book  from  which  he  took  it,  culls 
the  single  sentence  he  has  given.  "  Of  the  doctrines  and 
preachings  preserved  in  the  Church  we  have  some  from  the 
written  teaching,  and  some  we  have  received  from  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Apostles,  transmitted  to  us  in  the  mystery.  Both 
of  which  have  the  same  force  (itgog  ttiv  tmi^uav)  with  regard 
to  the  divine  service  ;*  and  these  no  one  gainsays,  certainly 
no  one  who  is  the  least  experienced  in  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tions." This  is  the  passage  which  Dr.  Milner  represents 
thus :  "  There  are  many  doctrines  preserved  and  preached 
in  the  Church,  derived  partly  from  written  documents,  partly 
from  apostolical  tradition^  which  have  equally  the  same  force 
in  religion,  and  which  no  one  contradicts  who  has  the  least 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  laws."  Now  why  did  he  leave 
out  the  all  important  words  "  transmitted  to  us  in  the  mys- 
tery," which  limit  and  explain  the  author's  meaning? 
"  Every  one  who  is  the  least  experienced  in  ecclesiastical 
institutions"  knows  the  extreme  caution  and  secrecy  observ- 
ed by  the  early  Church,  with  regard  to  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  her  worship.  The  daily  repetition  of  responses, 
creeds,  sacraments,  ceremonies,  and  all  other  ritual  observ- 
ances, fastened  them  in  the  memory,  and  so  long  as  persecu- 
tion endured,  rendered  the  commission  of  them  to  writing 
unnecessary.  That  St.  Basil  had  respect  to  these  when  he 
spoke  of  "  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  transmitted  to  us  in 
the  mystery,"  is  evident  from  the  context.  In  the  very  next 
sentences  following  that  which  Dr.  Milner  has  so  perverted, 
he  says :  "  For  if  we  should  undertake  to  reject  unwritten 
customs  as  not  having  much  force,  we  should  ignorantly 
endanger  the  gospel  in  things  of  moment,  yea  rather  should 
reduce  the  preaching  to  a  bare  name.  For  to  mention  that 
which  is  first  and  most  common,  who  teaches  by  the  Scrip- 
ture that  they  who  believe  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  should  be  signed  with  the  sign  of  the  cross  ?  What 
Scripture  teaches   us  the  turning  to  the  East  in   prayer? 

«  That  evj^Peia  is  often  used  to  denote  divine  worship,  see  Schleusner 
Lex.  in  N.  T.  ad  verb.  Acts  xvii.  23.  Whom  ye  ignorantly  worship, 
emePuTc.  Such  appears  to  me  to  be  the  force  of  the  word  here,  as  St. 
Basil  has  reference  to  the  Mystery  or  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  the 
office  for  which  was  properly  called  the  Liturgy. 


I; 


I 


96 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Which  of  the  saints  hath  left  to  us  in  writing  the  words  of 
invocation  at  the  consecration  of  tlie  bread  of  the  Eucharist 
and  of  the  cup  of  blessing  ?  For  we  do  not  content  our- 
selves with  what  the  Apostle  or  the  Gospel  hath  commemo- 
rated, but  we  say,  both  before  and  after,  other  words  which 
have  great  force  with  respect  to  the  mystery,  having  received 
them  from  the  unwritten  teaching."!  The  reader  cannot  but 
see  that  St.  Basil  is  here  contrastinij  the  written  Word  with 
the  Liturgical  services  of  the  Church,  which  had  been  pre- 
served by  general  usage,  and  preserved  in  substance  the 
same  throughout  the  world. 

As  for  St.  Epiphanius,  he  was  arguing  against  an  obscure 
sect  in  the  small  region  of  Phrygia,  Cilicia,  and  Pamphylia, 
who  called  themselves  "  the  Apostolic"  and  "  the  Apotac- 
tici"  or  renouncers.  They  gloried  in  a  voluntary  poverty, 
renounced  marriage,  and  accounted  no  other  persons  but 
themselves  to  be  members  of  the  Church.  His  argument 
therefore  is  confined  principally  to  marriage  and  the  posses- 
sion of  property.  In  treating  of  the  former  subject,  he  re- 
fers to  1  Cor.  vii.,  and  says  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr. 
Milner,  "All  the  divine  words  are  to  be  explained  not  by 
allegory,  but  as  they  really  are,  with  reflection  and  good 
sense,  so  as  to  see  the  force  of  each  expression.  It  is  need- 
ful also  that  tradition  he  used ;  for  all  things  cannot  he  taken 
from  the  Divine  Scriptures.  Wherefore  the  holy  Apostles 
delivered  some  things  in  loriting,  and  others  hy  tradition,  as 
the  holy  Apostle  says.  He  then  refers  to,  rather  than  quotes, 
I  Cot.  xi.  2,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  2,  S.f  If  then  the  reader  will 
examine  these  passages,  and  will  turn  back  to  what  I  have 
said  at  p.  31  on  the  meaning  of  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  he  will  per- 
ceive that  the  discipline  and  practice  of  tlie  Church  is  here 
appealed  to  by  St.  Epiphanius  in  support  of  that  sober  criti- 
cism of  the  Scriptures  which  proceeds  from  the  use  of  reflec- 
tion and  good  sense  in  weighing  the  force  of  every  expres- 
sion. And  this,  be  it  remembered,  was  written  when  the 
New  Testament  in  its  original  language,  and  the  daily  wor- 
ship of  the  Church  in  the  same,  were  fully  understood  as  the 
written  and  spoken  language  of  all  classes  of  people. 

Greek  is  now  to  the  greater  part  of  Christians  a  dead  lan- 

*  S.  Bas.  Op.  ed.  Bened.     Tom.  iii.  p.  54, 55. 

t  St.  Epiph.  adv.  Heeres.  Ed.  Petavii.     Tom.  i.  p.  510, 11. 


! 


DR.  MILNER's   quotations. 


97 


I' 


ii> 


guage.  It  was  so  to  Dr.  Milner's  Protestant  frieiids  ;  and 
to  show  them  his  own  knowledge, /re  words  from  St.  Chry- 
sostom  are  inserted  in  the  margin.  I  must  again  take  the 
liberty  of  connecting  text  with  context. 

The  homilies  of  St.  Chrysostom  preached  to  the  people 
are  a  continual   commentary  on  the   Scriptures  ;  and  what 
Griesbach  said  of  Origen,  might  with  still  greater  propriety 
be  said  of  him.     If  copies  of  almost  any  book  of  the  New 
Testament  were  lost,  we  could  nearly  restore  them  from  the 
sermons  of  St.  John  Chrysostom.     His  method  of  expound- 
ing the  Scriptures  is  one  which  preachers  of  the  present  day 
would  do  well  to  imitate  ;  and  his  works  are  the  storehouse 
from  which  the  eminent  lexicographers  and  commentators 
among  the  German  Protestants  have   brought    forth  much 
treasure,  for  which,  while  the  holy  bishop  is  forgotten,  they 
are  now  cited  and  applauded.     In  his  fourth  homily  on  St. 
Paul's  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  including  from 
eh.  ii.  V.  6  to  ch.  iii.  v.  2,  after  speaking  of  Antichrist  and 
the  terrible  judgment  to  be  inflicted  upon  all  who  have  not 
faith,  he   proceeds,  in  his  comment  from  v.  13th  to  16th  to 
speak  of  the  spiritual  privileges  and   duties  of  Christians. 
"  Great,"  he  says,  "  is  our  Lord  if  he  thus  grants  us  salva- 
tion ;    and    great  is  the  Holy   Ghost  who   worketh   in    us 
sanctification.     Wherefore  does  he"  (the  Apostle)  "  speak 
first  of  sanctification,  and  not  of  belief  (see  the  latter  part  of 
V.  13th)  ?     Because,  even  after  sanctification,  we  have  need 
of  much   faith,  that  we  be  not  easily  shaken.     Do  you  see 
how  he  shows  that  nothing  is  of  themselves,  but  all  of  God  ?" 
V.  15  :  Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast  and  hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  Avord  or  our  Epistle. 
"  Hence  it  is  manifest,"  comments  Chrysostom,  "that  they" 
(i.  e.  Paul  and  Silvanus  and  Timotheus,  in  whose  names  the 
first  as  well   as  the   second  Epistle  was  written)  "  had   not 
delivered  all  things  by  that  Epistle,  but  many  things  also 
unwritten.     In  like  manner,  therefore,  both  the  one  and  the 
other   are  worthy  of  belief;  so  that  we  ought  to  esteem  as 
worthy  of  faith,  the  tradition  of  the  Church  also.     It  is  tradi- 
tion :  seek  nothing  more."* 

Why  did  not  Dr.   Milner  add  the  comment  on  ch.  iii. 

*  S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  Opera,  ed.  Montf.  tom.  xi.  532. 


98 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


6,  which  is  in  the  next  homily  ?  Prayer,  continues  the 
preacher,  alluding  to  the  close  of  his  last  discourse  on  ch. 
iii.  I,  2,  is  of  mijjjhty  efficacy,  if  it  be  accompanied  by  works 
— God  is  faithful  and  will  give  us  the  salvation  He  has 
promised,  if  we  are  not  idle  like  stocks  and  stones. — We 
must  cast  every  thing  upon  him,  but  we  ourselves  must  also 
labour  and  contend  unto  our  latest  breath. — To  love  God  is 
to  endure,  and  not  to  murmur,  v.  6  :  We  command  you 
therefore,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walk- 
eth  disorderly  and  not  according  to  the  tradition  which  they 
received  from  us.  "  That  is,"  says  Chrysostom,  *'  it  is  not 
we  who  say  these  things,  but  Christ ;  for  this  is  meant 
by  *  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  Thus 
saying,  he  shows,  how  awful  is  the  command.  '  We  com- 
mand you,'  he  says,  '  by  Christ.'  Nowhere  hath  Christ 
commanded  us  to  be  idle.  *  That  ye  withdraw  yourselves,' 
he  says,  '  from  every  brother.'  Talk  not  to  me  of  the  rich, 
of  the  poor,  of  the  saint.  This  is  disorder.  '  That  walketh,' 
he  says :  that  is,  who  liveth.  '  And  not  according  to  the 
tradition  which  they  received  from  us.'  The  tradition 
WHICH  IS  BY  works,  he  says  ;  and  the  lord  always  calls 

THIS  TRADITION."* 

Now  why,  I  ask  again,  did  not  Dr.  Milner  add  this  pas- 
sage in  the  very  next  homily,  which  would  have  explained 
the  words  he  has  brought  forward  so  triumphantly  ?  The 
only  way  I  can  save  him  from  the  charge  of  dishonesty,  is 
to  believe  that  he  did  not  find  it  amonj'  the  extracts  of  his 
common -pi  ace  book. 

This  quotation  at  second  or  third  hand  may  do  well 
enough  for  those  who  rely  on  their  reader's  ignorance,  or 
indolence,  and  whose  object  is  victory  rather  than  truth  ; 
but  it  is  a  treacherous  mode  of  warfare,  and  often  betrays 
the  lion's  skin  upon  the  ass's  back.  Though  evidently  more 
at  home  in  Latin  than  in  Greek,  Dr.  Mihier  has  not  disdained 
to  quote  three  small  passages  from  the  voluminous  works  of 
St.  Augustine,  with  such  marginal  references  as  the  follow- 
ing:  L.  i.  contra  Crescon.  De  util.  Credend.  and  De  bapt. 
contra  Donat.  1.  v.     The  first  book  "against  Cresconius," 

S.  Jo.  Chr.  Op.  ut  sup.  p.  536-8. 


DR.  MILNER's    QUOTATIONS. 


99 


! 


I 


i: 


occupies  in  the  Antwerp  edition  of  his  works  nearly  seven 
closely  printed  folio  pages!  The  treatise  "on  the  utility 
of  believing,"  nine!  the  fifth  book  "on  baptism,  against  the 
Donatists,"  nearly  seven,  and  the  whole  seven  books  up- 
wards of  forty  !  He  has  quoted  so  inaccurately  that  I  have 
been  obliged  to  hunt  over  nearly  thirty  pages;  with  what 
success  I  shall  now  attempt  to  show :  but  why  did  he  give 
so  much  trouble  to  them  who  attempt  to  track  him  ? 

1.  Cresconius  the  Donatist  had  used  this  fallacious  argu- 
ment :  You  admit  our  baptism,  but  we  do  not  admit  yours. 
Therefore  it  is  better  to  be  baptized  among  the  Donatists. 
Augustine  answers :  Although  we  admit  your  baptism,  yet 
as  long  as  you  are  divided  fi'om  the  Church,  you  do  not  enjoy 
the  grace  of  baptism.  The  Canonical  Scriptures,  the  au- 
thority common  to  us  both,  cannot  decide  this  question 
directly,  because  no  case  of  heretical  baptisms  is  mentioned 
in  them,  and  they  can  be  used  only  in  illustration  and  by 
analogy.  "  As  for  the  decision  of  St.  Cyprian's  Council," 
on  which  the  Donatists  laid  great  stress,  "  it  has  justly  been 
overruled,"  says  St.  Augustine,  "  by  the  other  members  of 
the  Unity.  Nor  are  we  on  that  account  better  than  the 
Bishop  Cyprian,  any  more  than  we  are  better  than  the  Apos- 
tle Peter,  because  we  do  not  compel  the  Gentiles  to  judaize, 
as  it  is  shown  he  did  by  the  testimony  and  correction  of  the 
Apostle  Paul."  And  "then  follows  the  passage  quoted  by 
Dr.  Milner,  which  in  my  translation  will  appear  somewhat 
different  from  his ;  for  which  reason  they  are  placed  side  by 
side. 


Cap.  xxxiii.  39.  "  Ahhough, 
therefore,  no  example  can  certainly 
be  adduced  from  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  yet  the  truth  of  the  same 
Scriptures  is  held  by  us  even  in  this 
matter,  since  we  do  that  which 
hath  pleased  the  universal  Church 
— that  Church  which  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  themselves  com- 
mends: so  that,  since  holy  Scrip- 
ture cannot  err,  whosoever  fears  to 
err  in  the  obscurity  of  this  question, 
let  him  consult  concerning  it  that 
same  Church  which  without  any 


Dr.  Milnefs  Translation  in  Let- 
ter X- 


"  To  attain  to  the  truth  of  the 
Scriptures  we  must  follow  the  sense 
of  ihern  entertained  by  the  universal 
Church  to  which  the  Scriptures 
themselves  bear  testimony.  True  it 
is,  the  Scriptures  themselves  cannot 
deceive  us  ;  nevertheless,  to  prevent 
our  being  deceived  in  the  question 
we  examine  by  them,  it  is  necessa- 
ry  we    should    advise    with    that 


100 


REPLY   TO    MILNEr's    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


ambiguity  holy  Scripture   demon-     Church  which  these  certainly  and 
strates." — S.    Augustine    Op.    ed.     evidently  point  out  to  us." 
Benedict.  Antwerp.  Tom.  ix.  277, 

278. 

2.  The  second  quotation,  according  to  Dr.  Milner,  is 
from  some  treatise  in  which  is  discussed  "the  unlawfulness 
of  rebaptizing  heretics  ;"  and  in  the  margin  he  refers  to  *'  De 
Util.  Credend."  Now  I  have  read  over  repeatedly  the  nine 
folio  pages  of  that  treatise,  and  cannot  find  the  two  sentences 
he  has  given.  Nor  can  I  conceive  how  a  work  written  to 
reclaim  Honoratus  from  Manicheeism,  could  have  any  thino- 
in  it  about  rebaptizing  heretics.  The  Manichees,  as  Stt 
Augustine  himself  tells  us,*  rejected  baptism  entirely.  The 
question  about  heretical  baptisms  was  with  the  Donatists. 
I  cannot  but  believe,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Milner  has  been  led 
into  error  by  his  second  or  third  hand  common-place  books, 
the  accuracy  of  which  he  did  not  verify.  Both  his  other 
quotations  are  from  the  Donatist  controversy,  and  relate  to 
the  same  subject. 

3.  The  last  is,  as  he  states,  from  the  fifth  book  of  the 
work  on  Baptism,  (and  as  I  add  from  the  tw^enty-third  chap- 
ter,)  where  he  is  commenting  on  St.  Cyprian's  Epistle  ad 
Pompeium.  That  Epistle  was  written  in  opposition  to  the 
Epistle  of  Stephen  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  defended  the 
baptism  of  heretics,  and  maintained  on  the  ground  of  tradi- 
tion that  they  should  be  reconciled  to  the  Church  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands  only.  St.  Cyprian  considers  this  as  a 
reproach  cast  upon  the  Apostles,  and  denies  that  there  could 
be  any  such  tradition  from  them.f  It  is  on  this  passage  that 
St.  Augustine  comments  in  the  words  selected  by  Dr.  Mil- 
ner :  "  The  Apostles,  however,  have  given  no  precepts  at  all 
upon  the  subject;  but  that  custom  which  was  opposed  to 
Cyprian  must  be  believed  to  have  taken  its  rise  from  their 
tradition,  since  there  are  many  things  which  the  universal 
Church  holds,  and  which  are  on  this  account  fully  believed 
to  be  precepts  from  the  Apostles,  althougli  they  are  not  found 
written.":]: 

The  reader  will   clearly  see  that  universal  usage  is  the 

*  Lib.  de  Haeres.  xlvi. 

t  S.  Cypr.  Op.  Epist.  Ixxiv.  ed.  Bened.  p.  138. 

t  S.  Aug.  Op.  utsup.  torn.  ix.  col.  105. 


DK.  milker's    quotations. 


101 


iv 


tl 


\i 


fact  on  which  St.  Augustine  grounded  his  belief  as  to  Apos- 
tolical tradition ;  consequently  nothing  can  come  under  this 
rule  which  is  not  of  universal  usage.  There  are  two  other 
passages  in  the  same  work  much  more  to  the  point  than  this. 
Lib.  ii.  c.  7,  and  Lib.  iv.  c.  24,  which  I  should  be  glad  to 
quote,  and  which  I  may  have  occasion  to  quote  hereafter, 
^  because  they  give  what  I  think  an  excellent  rule  by  which 
to  judge  what  are  or  are  not  Apostolical  traditions.  I  now 
hasten  to  the  last  of  Dr.  Milner's  authorities  previous  to  the 
fatal  division  of  the  Catholic  Church  after  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century. 

Vincentius  of  Lcrins  in  Gaul,  who  died  in  the  reign  of 
Theodosius  and  Valcntinian,  not  later  than  a.  d.  450,  wrote 
his  Commonitorium  or  Memorial  three  years  after  the  third 
General  Council,  or  a.  d.  434.  It  occupies  57  pages  in  8vo, 
numbered  in  the  edition  of  Baluzius,  from  p.  315  to  p.  371. 
As  Dr.  Milner  has  treated  this  author  much  as  he  did  Ter- 
tullian,  putting  extracts  together  which  in  the  original  work 
are  wide  apart,  I  shall  mention  the  pages  from  which  they 
are  taken,  to  show  how  he  has7?re55e(Z"Vincentius  also  into 
his  service.  The  first  is  from  p.  317,  and  is  rather  a  state- 
ment, in  Dr.  Milner's  own  language,  than  a  quotation.  I 
shall  give  it  literally  from  the  author,  and  therefore  omit  it 
here.  ^  The  other  quotations  are  as  follows ;  his  translation 
and  mine  being  placed  opposite,  and  the  essential  points  of 
dilFerence  being  marked  in  mine  by  italics. 

P.    328.    To  preach  any   thing  Dr. Milner. 

therefore    to    Catholic    Christians         It  never  was,  is  or  will  be  lawfol 

hilt  that  which  they  hate  received,  for  Catholic  Christians  to  teach  any 

never  was,  never  is,  and  never  will  doctrhie    except    that    which   they 

be  lawful ;    and    to    anathematize  once  received  :  and  it  ever  was,  is 

those  who  preach  any  thing  lohich  and  will  be  their  duy  to  condemn' 

was  not  at  first  (semel)  received,  those  who  do  so. 
ever  was,  ever  is,  and  ever  shall  be 
a  duty. 

P.  356.     Here  perhaps  some  one 
may  ask,  whether  the  heretics  use         Do  the  heretics  then  appeal  Xo 

the  testimony  of  the  divine  Scrip-  the  Scriptures  ?     Certainly  they  do, 

tures?     iMost   assuredly    they   do,  and  this  with  the  utmost  confidence.* 

and  that  vehemently.    For  you  may  You  will  gee  them  running  hastily 

see    them    flying    through    all    the  through  the  different  books' of  Holy 

hooks   of    the    holy   law,    through  Writ,  these  of  Moses,  Kings,  the 

Mosos,    the    books   of    Kings,    the  Psiilms,  the  Gospels,  &c.    At  home 

Psalms,  the  Apostles,  the  Gospels,  and  abroad,  in  their  discourses  and 


102  REPLY   TO   MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


the  Prophets.  For  whether  among 
friends  or  strangers,  in  private  or 
in  public,  in  converfiutions  or  in 
books,  at  convivial  meetings  or  in 
the  streets,  they  scarcely  ever  ad- 
vance any  thing  of  their  own  with- 
out seeking  to  shelter  it  under  the 
words  of  Scripture.  Bead  the 
treatises  of  Paul  of  Saniosata, 
Priscillian,  Eunomius,  Jovinian, 
and  the  rest  of  the  pests.  You 
perceive  an  infinite  heap  of  exam- 
ples, scarcely  a  page  which  is  not 
daubed  and  coloured  with  sentences 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
But  the  more  secretly  they  lurk 
under  the  shade  of  the  divine  law, 
so  much  the  more  are  they  to  be 
guarded  against  and  feared.  For 
they  know  that  their  stenches  can 
please  no  one  if  simply  and  nakedly 
exhaled,  and  therefore  they  sprinkle 
them  with  the  fragrance  of  heaven- 
ly eloquence.  For  he  who  would 
quickly  despise  human  error,  may 
not  easily  condemn  the  divine  ora- 
cles. 

P.  358.  "And  no  marvel;'  he 
says,"  for  Satan  himself  is  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  light" 
(2  Cor.  xi.  14.)  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, a  great  thing  if  his  ministers 
also  are  transformed  as  ministers 
o[  righteousness. 

P.  359.  What  will  he  do  to  mis- 
erable men,  who  attacked  the  Lord 
of  Majesty  himself  with  authori- 
ties from  the  Scriptures? 

P.  361).  But  some  one  may  say. 
If  the  devil  and  his  disciples,  of 
whom  some  are  fahe  apostles, 
others  false  prophets,  and  false 
teachers,  and  all  utterly  heretics, 
make  use  of  the  divine  eloquence, 
declarations  and  promises,  what 
shall  they  do  who  are  Catholic  men 
and  sons  of  their  mother  the  Church? 
In  what  way  shall  they  distinguish 
truth  from  falsehood  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ?     They  must  take  es- 


in  their  writings,  they  hardly  pro- 
duce a  sentence  which  is  not  larded 
with  the  words  of  Scripture,  &.c. 


But  they  arc  so  much  the  more 
to  be  dreaded,  as  they  conceal 
themselves  under  the  veil  of  the 
divine  laws. 


Let  us,  however,  remember  that 
Satan   transformed  himself  into  an 


angel  of  light. 


If  he  could  turn  the  Scriptures 
against  the  Lord  of  Majesty,  what 
use  may  he  not  make  of  them 
against  us  poor  mortals  ! — If  then 
Satan  and  his  disciples,  the  here- 
tics, are  capable  of  thus  perverting 
holy  Scri[)ture,  how  are  Catholics, 
tne  children  of  the  Church,  to  make 
use  of  them,  so  as  to  discern  truth 
from  falsehood  ? 


They  must  carefully  observe  the 


' 


DR.  MILNER's   quotations. 


103 


pecial  care  to  do  that  which  in  the     rule  laid  down  at  the  beginning  of 
beginning  of  this  Commonitory  I     this  treatise  by  the  holy  and  learned 
wrote   had  been  delivered  to  us  by     men    I   referred  to  :    they  are  to 
holy  and   learned  men  :   they  must     interpret  the  divine  text  accord- 
interpret  the  divine  canon  accord-     ing  to  the  tradition  of  the  Cath- 
ing  to  the  traditions  of  the  univer-     olio  Church. 
sal  Church  and  the  rules  of  Catholic 
doctrine;  in  which   Catholic   and 
Apostolic  Church  it  is   necessary 
that  they  should  follow  universal- 
ity, antiquity  and  consent. 

The  objections  I  make  to  Dr.  Milner's  translation  are, 

First.  The  entire  disregard  to  the  train  of  argument  used 

by  his  author. 
Second.  The  perversion  of  his  language  wherever  the 

special  object  had  in  view  in  quoting  demanded  it. 
Third.  The  omission  of  passages  which,  if  he  really  read 

the  work,  must  have  come  under  his  observation,  and 

which  would  defeat  his  whole  design  :  and 
Fourth.  The  dishonesty  of  deceiving  such  men  as  he  had 

imagined  for  his  Protestant  correspondents. 

1.  The  argument  of  Vincentius  is  much  like  that  of 
Tertullian.  There  are  two  modes,  he  says,  generally  ad- 
mitted by  holy  and  learned  men,  of  exposing  the  frauds  and 
avoiding  the  snares  of  heretics  ;  the  one  on  the  authority  of 
the  divine  law,  the  other  by  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Then  follows  the  first  passage  imperfectly  quoted. 
"  Here  perhaps  some  one  may  ask,  Since  the  canon  of  the 
Scriptures  is  perfect,  and  is  in  itself  sufficient  and  more  than 
sufficient  for  all  things,  what  need  is  there  that  the  authority 
of  the  ecclesiastical  understanding  should  be  joined  to  it  ?  Be- 
cause, he  answers,  all  do  not  receive  Holy  Scripture  in  one 
and  the  same  sense,  by  reason  of  its  very  profundity.  Its  lan- 
guage is  by  different  persons  differently  interpreted ;  so  that  it 
seems  as  if  almost  as  many  senses  can  be  extracted  from  it,  as 
there  are  individuals.  For  Novatian  explains  it  in  one  way, 
Photinus  in  another,  Sabellius  in  a  third,  and  Donatus  in  a 
fourth.  Arrius,  Eunomius  and  Macedoniusdiffi^rently  ;  Apol- 
linaris  and  Priscilianus  differently  ;  Jovinianus,  Pelagius  and 
Celestius,  differently  ;  and  lastly,  Nestorius,  differently.  And 
therefore  it  isfortliis  reason  very  necessary,  on  account  of  so 
many  tortuosities  of  such  party-coloured  error,  that  the  clue  of 


*l ■'"* »'ff 


104  REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


}    ' 


Prophetic  and  Apostolic  interpretation  should  be  extended 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  Ecclesiastical  and  Catholic 
sense."  Here  Dr.  Milner's  first  quotation  ends.  But  the 
author  proceeds  as  follows.  "  In  the  Catholic  Church  her- 
self the  Greatest  care  is  also  to  be  observed  that  we  should 
hold  that  which  every  where,  which  always,  which  by  all 
has  been  believed  :  quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ah  omnU 
bus,  credltum  est.'' 

The  last  expression  ab  omnibus  is  elliptical ;  and  the  noun 
with  which  it  agrees,  must  be  inserted.  Vincentius  did  not 
mean  uW  persons  ;  for  the  very  disorder  he  proposed  to  cure, 
arose  from  the  contradictory  expositions  of  individuals.  He 
meant  therefore  as  Tertullian  meant,  to  refer  the  exposition 
of  Scripture  to  the  various  provincial  churches,  into  which, 
according  to  the  system  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  Church 
Catholic  was  then  distributed.  I  say  distributed  rather  than 
divided,  because  there  was  then  no  breach  of  communion  ; 
and  a  Christian  wherever  he  might  be  found,  went  to  the  next 
city  as  his  abiding  place,  in  all  the  enjoyment  of  the  Church's 
charity. 

Antiquity,  universality  and  consent,  being  the  three  prin- 
ciples by  which  every  doctrine  derived  from  Scripture  is  to  be 
tried,  what,  continues  Vincentius,  sliall  any  Catholic  Chris- 
tian do,  if  some  particle  of  the  Church  shall  cut  itself  off  from 


the  communion  of  the  universal  faith  ?  what,  he  answers, 
but  that  he  should  prefer  the  soundness  of  the  universal 
body,  to  a  pestiferous  and  corrupted  member  ? — what  if 
some  new  contagion  should  attempt  to  pollute  not  a  small 
portion  only,  but  even  the  whole  Church  ?  Then  he  will  be 
cautious  to  adhere  closely  to  antiquity,  which  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  seduced  by  any  fraud  of  novelty.  What  if  even  in 
that  antiquity,  some  error  of  two  or  three  men,  or  of  one 
city,  or  even  of  one  province,  be  detected  ?  Then  he  will 
take  especial  care  to  prefer  the  decisions  of  the  universal 
Church  to  the  temerity  and  ignorance  of  a  few,  if  there  be 
any  such  universally  and  anciently.— What  if  any  such  arise 
where  no  such  decision  is  to  be  found?  Tlicn  he  will  labour 
to  consult  and  interrogate  the  sentiments  of  the  ancients, 
collated  and  compared  among  themselves — at  least  of  those 
who  existed  as  accredited  masters,  and  remained  steadfast, 
though  at  different  times  and  in  divers  places,  in  the  commu- 
nion and  faith  of  the  one  Catholic  Church  ',  and  whatsoever 


DR.  milner's   quotations. 


105 


he  shall  know  that  not  one  or  two  only,  but  all  equally,  with 
one  and  the  same  consent,  openly,  frequently,  perseveringly, 
have  held,  written,  or  taught,  that,  he^understands  is  by  him 
also  to  be  unhesitatingly  believed." 

He  then  illustrates  these  remarks  by  the  case  of  the  Dona- 
tists,  who  overran  a  great  part  of  Africa,  and  of  the  Arians,  who 
partly  by  force,  and  partly  by  fraud,  seduced  almost  all  the 
Bishops  of  the  Latin  speech,  and  beginning  from  the  imperial 
throne,  shook  almost  the  whole  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Yet  it 
was  resisted  by  those  who  pre'ferred  to  sacrifice  themselves 
rather  than  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Universality. 

He  next  states  the  question  concerning  heretical  baptisms, 
and  the  decision  of  Agrippinus  the  predecessor  of  Cyprian 
in  the  See  of  Carthage,  as  a  novelty  opposed  to  Catholic 
practice.  And  so  he"  proceeds  until  he  quotes  and  comments 
upon  the  expression  of  St.  Paul,  Gal.  1  :  8.  Though  we 
or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you 
than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed,  anathema 
sit.  Though  we  and  not  /.  That  is,  says  Vincentius, 
Though  Peter  or  Andrew  or  John,  or  the  whole  Apostolic  choir, 
should  preach  to  you  any  other  gospel,  let  him  be  accursed. 
Tremendous  distinction  !  But  even  this  is  not  enough.  If 
an  angel  from  heaven  should  preach  any  other  gospel^ let  him 
he  accursed.  Not  that  the  holy  angels  can  sin ;  but  as  if  he 
had  said,  "  Even  if  an  impossibility  were  possible." — And 
then  comes  in  (p.  329)  the  second  in  the  series  of  Dr. 
Milner's  j^a^ch-work  f  The  object  of  his  author  was  to 
prove  from  St.  Paul's  own  words  that  no  force  of  authority, 
not  even  the  highest,  could  ever  sanction  error  ;  and  that  it  is 
owr  duty  to  renounce  and  abhor  such  authority,  should  it  ever 
seek  to  sanction  it.  He  therefore  concludes  this  part  of  his 
argument  in  the  following  manner : 

"These  things  being  so,  has  anyone  so  much  hardihood, 
as  to  preach  what  has  not  been  preached  in  the  Church  ?  or 
so  much  levity  as  to  receive  any  thing  which  the  Church  has 
not  received  ?  He  who  was  the  chosen  vessel,  he  who  was 
the  teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  he  who  was  the  clarion  of  the 
Apostles,  he  who  was  the  herald  of  the  earth,  he  who  was  the 
witness  of  the  unutterable  things  in  Heaven,  cries,  and  cries 
again,  and  among  all,  and  ahvays,  and  every  lohere,  by  his 
EPISTLES  cries,  that  if  any  one  preacheth  a  new  doctrine,  let 
him  be  accursed !" 


106 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


P.  326. — "But  someone  will  say,  why  then  are  certain 
excellent  persons  appointed  in  the  church,  often  permitted 
by  God  to  preach  novelties  to  Catholics  ?"  Vincentius  com- 
mends the  question,  and  proceeds  for  nearly  eighteen  pages 
to  answer  it ;  partly  from  the  text,  Deut.  xiii.  1-3 — the  case 
of  a  prophet  who  entices  to  idolatry  ;  and  partly  illustrations 
from  Church  history,  considering  among  others,  the  exam- 
ples of  Origen  and  Tertullian.  The  error  of  a  great  teacher 
is  a  trial  from  God  to  prove  His  people  ivhether  they  truly  love 
Him  ;  and  the  trial  is  the  greater  in  proportion  to  the  learning  'of 
him  who  goes  astray.  He  then  gives  (p.  346)  the  following 
description  of  a  good  Catholic. 

*'  He  is  a  true  and  genuine  Catholic  who  loves  God's 
truth, — the  Church, — the  body  of  Cliirist ;  who  prefers 
nothing  to  divine  religion  or  the  Catholic  faith  ;  no  authority, 
no  love,  no  genius,  no  eloquence,  no  philosophy  of  any  man  ; 
but  despising  all  these  things,  and  remaining  fixed  and  stable 
in  the  faith,  determines  that  by  him  must  be  held  and  believed 
only  whatsoever  he  shall  have  known  to  be  universally  and 
anciently  held  by  tlie  Catholic  Church  ;  but  whatsoever  he 
shall  have  perceived  to  have  been  introduced  that  was  new 
and  unheard  of  by  any  one,  in  addition  to,  or  against  all  holy 
persons,  that,  he  is  to  understand,  belongs  not  to  religion,  but 
is  rather  a  trial.  Especially  will  he  so  understand,  when 
taught  by  the  eloquence  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul  (1  Cor. 
xi.  19).  There  must  he  also  heresies  among  you,  that  they 
which   are  approved  may  he  made  manifest  among  you.^^ 

After  commenting  upon  this  text  at  some  length,  he  adds 
(p.  348)  :  "  Reflecting  again  and  again  upon  these  tilings, 
I  cannot  sufficiently  wonder  at  so  great  madness  of  certain 
men,  so  great  impiety  of  the  darkened  mind,  so  great  lust,  in 
fine,  of  wandering,  that  they  cannot  be  content  with  the  rule 
of  faith  at  first  delivered,  and  anciently  received,  but  seek 
from  day  to  day  novelty  after  novelty,  and  are  always  de- 
lighting themselves  with  adding  to,  changing,  or  taking  away 
something  from  religion."  This  leads  to  another  division  of 
his  argument,  proceeding  from  another  question.  And  here 
it  is  very  remarkable  that  Vincentius,  under  the  term  "  pro- 
fectus,"  or  advancement  in  religion,  has  anticipated  and 
guarded  against  the  very  fallacy  of  Mr,  Newman's  doctrine 
of  development. 


DR.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


107 


He  thus  states  the  question,  p.  350  :  "  But  perhaps  some 
one  will  say.  Is  no  development  of  religion  then  to  be  per- 
mitted in  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  Most  evidently,"  he  an- 
swers, "  the  greatest  development ;  but  let  it  be  truly  a 
development,  not  a  change."  He  compares  it  to  the  organi- 
zation of  the  human  soul  and  body,  both  in  individuals  and 
in  the  Church.  "  It  belongs  to  development,  that  every  thing 
should  be  in  itself  enlarged.  It  belongs  to  change,  that  one 
thing  should  be  turned  into  another."  If  the  human  species 
be  changed  into  some  form  which  is  not  of  its  own  nature,  or 
if  any  thing  be  added  to,  or  subtracted  from  the  number  of 
its  members,  the  whole  body  must  of  necessity  be  severed, 
or  become  a  monster  or  be  weakened.  So  also  must 
the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion  follow  these  laws  of 
development,  that  by  years  it  may  be  consolidated,  be  en- 
larged by  time,  and  exalted  by  Vige,  provided  it  remain  uncor- 
rupted  and  undefiled,  and  in  the  universal  measures  of  its 
parts ;  and  in  all  its  members  and  peculiar  senses,  be  full 
and  perfect,  so  that  it  admits  nothing  further  of  change,  and 
sustains  no  waste  of  property  and  no  variety  of  definition." 

He  then,  almost  prophetically,  gives  the  reverse  of  the 
picture,  if  instead  of  just  development,  there  be  substituted 
the  corruption  of  a  fraudulent  change.  P.  353. — "  If  this 
license  of  impious  fraud,  be  once  permitted,  I  dread  to 
speak  of  the  danger  which  may  ensue  of  the  utter  extermi- 
nation of  religion.  For  if  any  part  of  the  Catholic  doctrine 
be  abandoned,  first  one  also,  and  then  another,  and  succes- 
sively another  and  another,  as  if  of  moral  right,  will  be 
abandoned.  And  thus  the  several  parts  being  one  by  one 
repudiated,  what  else  must  follow  at  the  last,  but  that  all 
shall  be  equally  repudiated  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  novelty 
be  preferred  to  antiquity,  foreign  to  domestic,  and  profane 
things  be  mingled  with  sacred,  this  custom  must  of  necessity 
creep  on  and  become  general,  so  that  nothing  thereafter  will 
be  left  in  the  Church  untouched  or  unviolated,  entire  or  im- 
maculate, but  thenceforward  it  becomes  the  stew  of  impious 
and  base  errors,  where  once  was  the  sanctuary  of  chaste  and 
uncorrupted  truth."  May  the  divine  compassion,  he  ex- 
claims, avert  such  wickedness  ! — "  The  Church  of  Christ, 
the  diligent  and  cautious  guardian  of  the  doctrines  committed 
to  her,  changes    nothing  in    them,  diminishes    nothmg,  and 


DK.  MILNER  S    QUOTATIONS. 


109 


108 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


adds  nothing.  It  cuts  off  nothing  necessary  ;  it  adds  nothing 
superfluous  ;  it  loses  not  its  own  ;  it  usurps  not  what  belongs 
to  another." 

Such,  be  it  observed,  was  the  language  used  between  the 
third  and  fourth  General  Councils,  before  Latin  was  rent 
from  Greek,  and  West  from  East,  and  the  Catholic  Church 
still  meant  what  its  name  imports. 

At  p.  356,  the  author  introduces  a  new  branch  of  his 
subject,  in  his  usual  way  of  stating  an  objection.  **  Here, 
perhaps,  some  one  may  ask  whether  heretics  use  the  testi- 
mony of  the  divine  Scriptures.  Most  assuredly  they  do,"  he 
answers,  "and  that  vehemently."  And  here  comes  in  Dr. 
Milner's  patch  the  third.  He  omits,  however,  the  examples 
by  which  Vincentius  defines  his  meaning,  and  then  inserts 
patch  the  fourth.  Again  he  omits  the  reason  why  they  quot- 
ed the  Bible,  because  without  it  they  could  not  induce  Chris- 
tians to  receive  their  impurities ;  a  reason  which  the  author 
dwells  upon  for  nearly  two  pages  ;  and  then  comes  in  from 
p.  358  patch  the  fifth,  and  from  p.  ^'j9  j^atch  the  sixth.  "  But," 
says  Vincentius,  p.  360,  <'  some  one  may  say.  If  the  devil 
and  his  disciples  thus  abuse  Scriptures,  what  shall  Catholics 
do  ?"  And  with  this  inquiry  Dr.  Milncr  most  triumphantly 
introduces  patch  the  last. 

Purpureus,  late  qui  splendeat,  unus  et  alter 
Adsuitur  panus. 

2.  This  patching  process  is  of  itself  an  entire  perversion 
of  the  author's  meaning ;  but  there  are  verbal  changes  also 
which  seem  to  me  not  without  design.  I  refer  particularly 
to  those  in  the  second  and  last  extracts.  My  translation  is  lite- 
ral ;  and  I  have  shown  the  connection  of  both  passages  with 
the  context.  In  the  former,  Vincentius  speaks  of  the  atiful 
anathema  due  to  those  preachers  who  teach  a  doctrine  at  vari- 
ance  with  tiie  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  ;  in  the  latter 
he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  diviue  canon,  in  the 
interpretation  of  which  his  three  great  rules  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine are  to  be  followed,  viz.,  universality,  antiquity,  and  con- 
sent. Would  such  ideas  ever  be  conveyed  to  any  mind  by 
Dr.  Milner's  extracts  ? 

3.  My  third  objection  is  to  his  omissions,  which  in  the  fore- 
going  analysis  I  have  endeavoured  faithfully  to  supply.  "Let 
the  reader  carefully  examine  them,  and  then   ask  himself, 


\ 


■i 


Could  Dr.  Milner,if  he  really  had  read  his  author,  have  honest- 
ly used  such  language  as  the  following :  ''  It  seems  doing  an  in- 
jury to  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins — to  quote  a  part  of  his  celebrated 
commonitorium !" 

4.  And  therefore  I  object,  in  the  fourth  place,  to  the  dis- 
honesty  of  deceiving  ignorant  persons,  such  as  he  has  chosen 
for  his  correspondents.  If  he  contented  himself  with  extracts 
made  by  some  other  person,  where  was  his  learning  1  If  he 
read  his  author,  and  did  not  perceive  the  tendency  of  his  argu- 
ment, where  was  his  perspicacity  ?  If  he  did  perceive  it,  and 
yet  quoted  Vincentius  to  support  his  doctrine  of  "  unwritten 
tradition''  where  was  his  honesty  ?  How  much  more  manly 
was  it  in  the  subtle-minded  and  learned  Mr.  Newman,  to 
abandon  what  he  calls  "  the  dictum  of  Vincentius,"  as  utter- 
ly unmanageable  and  fatal  to  his  cause !  Mr.  Newman's 
Essay  on  Development  has  constituted  an  epoch  in  the  con- 
troversy. It  is  a  total  surrender  of  antiquity,  universality 
and  consent.  The  questions  in  controversy  between  the 
English  and  the  Roman  communions,  are  all  of  later  origin 
than  the  fifth  century. 

Leaving  Dr.  Milner  to  skirmish  with  the  few  stragglers 
from  English  orthodoxy,  such  as  Archdeacon  Blackburn, 
and  Bishops  Hoadly  and  Watson  ;  (if  he  captures  them,  I 
have  no  sort  of  objection;)  leaving  him  also  to  pervert  the 
language  of  Bishop  Porteus,  a  prelate  worthy  of  Apostolic 
times  ;  I  proceed  to  redeem  a  pledge  given  early  in  this 
work,  on  the  subject  of  divine  and  apostolical  Traditions,  It 
was  then  observed  (Chap.  II.  Tradition,  p.  29)  that  the  very 
examples  given  by  Bellarmine  to  illustrate  what  he  meant 
by  such  traditions,  "  are  all  admitted  in  our  communion, 
though,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  for  a  different  reason."  That 
reason  I  proceed  now  to  give. 

To  any  who  diligently  and  understandmgly  searches 
the  Scriptures,  and  knows  how  they  have  been  universally, 
anciently  and  consentingly  interpreted,  the  observance  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  will  be  a  mat- 
tor  of  conscientious  and  dutiful  obligation.  Though  the 
prima3val  Sabbath  was  the  seventh  day  from  the  beginning  of 
creation,  yet  to  man,  the  last  formed  of  the  Creator's  works, 
it  was  the  first.  As  soon  as  he  became  a  living  soul,  he  en- 
tered on  his  holy  Sabbath,     When  the  Israelites  were  freed 

6 


I 


110  REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 

from  Egyptian  bondage  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  they  im- 
mediately entered  on  their  rest  in  the  wilderness.     When, 
forty  years  after,  they  crossed  the  Jordan,  the  first  day  of 
their  arrival  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  was  the  Sabbath.*     At 
the  new  creation,  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  the  glorified 
man  Christ  Jesus,  the  second   Adam,  entered  also  into  his 
Sabbath.     The   observance  of  that  day  may  well  be  con- 
sidered  as  among  *'  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom 
of   God,"   in   which    our  Lord    instructed    his  Apostles  ;f 
for  we  find   incidentally  mentioned  in  St.  Luke's  narrative 
of  the  early  planting  of  the  church  and  elsewhere,  that  the 
disciples  assembled  together  for  prayer  and  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  J  At  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  the  aged  Apostle  St.  John  says  that  he  "  was 
in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,"||  and  forty  years  after,  Justin 
Martyr  speaks  of  Sunday  as  being  thus  observed  by  all  Chris- 
tians.lT  Not  a  single  church  can  be  found,  from  the  very  begin- 
ning, which  had  a  different  practice.     We  say,  therefore,  that 
"  it  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture 
and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time,"  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  Sunday,  or  the  Lord's  day,  hath  been  always, 
every  where,  and  by  all,  observed  as  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

We  say  the  same  with  regard  to  the  matter  and  form  of 
the  sacraments.  Both  in  baptism  and  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  matter  and  form  are  expressly  enjoined  by  our  blessed 
Saviour.  Without  water,  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  can  be 
no  valid  baptism.  Without  bread  and  wine,  and  the  sacra- 
mental words  and  actions  instituted  by  our  Lord,  there  can 
be  no  valid  Eucharist. 

Infant  baptism  depends  not  upon  unwritten  tradition,  but 
upon  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  interpreted  and  practised  upon 
from  the  Apostles'  times.  Baptism  was  in  itself  no  new 
thing.  It  certainly  dates  as  far  back  as  the  separation  of 
the  sons  of  Jacob  from  the  other  circumcised  descendants  of 
Abraham,  as  God's  special  people.     When  all  were  baptized 

»  The  first  Passover,  b.  c.  1.504,  and  the  Crossing  of  the  Jordan,  b.  c. 
1464,  both  took  place  on  Friday.  The  reader  may  calculate  and  see  the 
truth  of  these  computations  by  means  of  the  Tables  in  my  "  Chronological 
Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Church." 

I  Acts  i.  3.  t  Acts  XX.  7,  1  Cor.  xvi.  2. 

^  Rev.  1.  10.  (j  Apol.  i.  67.  Ed.  Bened.  p.  83. 


'  il 


>  w 


DR.  MILNER's    quotations. 


Ill 


.  < 


> 


into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  the  infants  among 
them  were  baptized.*  When  our  Lord  commissioned  his 
apostles,  to  baptize  all  nations,  he  did  not  except  infants ;  which 
he  would  have  done,  if  he  had  so  intended.f  When  St.  Peter 
proclaimed,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  great  charter  of  hu- 
man salvation  to  the  penitent  Jews,  he  assured  them  that  the 
promise  was  not  only  to  them,  but  to  their  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  etc.J  "  If,"  says  St.  Chrysostom,  "to  those 
that  are  afar  off,  how  much  more  to  them  that  are  nigh  ?"§ 
Neither  St.  Peter,  nor  any  of  the  Apostles  were  convinced 
that  "  to  the  Gentiles  repentance  was  granted  unto  life" 
until  after  the  baptism  of  Cornelius. ||  The  expressions  there- 
fore on  the  day  of  Pentecost  had  reference  more  immediately 
to  the  Jews.  St.  Paul  expressly  asserts  that  Baptism  is  the 
Christian  circumcision  ;1F  and  no  valid  reason  can  be  assigned 
why  circumcision  should  have  been  administered  to  infants, 
and  baptism  should  not,  unless  it  had  been  expressly  forbidden. 
That  this  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  correct  we  have  the 
testimony  required  by  the  rule  of  Vincentius,  universality, 
antiquity,  and  consent.  And  it  is  to  this  subject  that  St.  Au- 
gustine applies  the  rule  which  I  mentioned,  while  considering 
his  testimony  :  "  That  which  the  universal  Church  holds,  and 
which  has  not  been  instituted  by  Councils  but  has  always  been 
retained,  is  most  rightly  believed  to  have  been  delivered  by 
no  other  than  Apostolic  authority."** 

As  to  the  Lenten  fast  and  the  Ember  days  at  the  four 
seasons,  we  observe  and  enjoin  them,  as  ancient  and  profita- 
ble institutions,  but  not  as  coming  within  St.  Augustine's 
rule,  much  less  "  as  an  article  of  faith  "  or  as  "  necessary 
to  salvation. "tf 

The  yearly  observance- of  the  festival  of  Easter,  and  the 
preceding  fast  of  our  Lord's  passion,  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve was  continued  from  the  Apostles'  time.    The  agitations 

•  1  Cor.  X.  2.  t  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.        t  Acts  ii.  39. 

4  Act.  Apost.  Horn.  vii.  Ed.  Bened.  Tom.  ix.  56. 

11  Acts  xi.  1-18.  IT  Col.  ii.  11, 12. 

**  Quod  universa  tenet  Ecclesia  nee  conciliis  institutum,  sed  semper 
retentum  est,  non  nisi  auctoritate  Apostolica  traditum,  rectissime  creditur. 
— S.  Aug.  De  Bapt.  cont.  Donat.  lib.  iv.  c  24  .ed.  Bened.  Antwerp,  torn. 
ix.  col.  94. 

ft  Art.  VI. 


112     REPLY  TO  MILNER's  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


DR.  MILNER's  QUOTATIONS. 


113 


of  the  quartodeciman  controversy  in  the  early  church,  arising 
from  the  single  point,  whether  the  days  of  the  week  or  the 
days  of  the  lunar  month  were  to  regulate  the  observance, 
afford  ample  proof  that  the  observance  itself  was  universal. 
But  in  the  meagre  account  which  Eusebius  gives  of  this 
controversy*  after  the  tenth  year  of  Commodus,  a.  d.  189, 
learned  men  are  not  yet  agreed  whether  *'  the  fast  of  forty," 
mentioned  by  Irenoeus,  was  a  fast  for  forty  days  or  forty 
hours.  "  Some,"  says  that  ancient  writer,  "  suppose  that 
ihey  ought  to  fast  one  day,  others,  two,  others,  more ;  and 
others  " .  Here  commences  the  difficulty,  all  depend- 
ing on  the  punctuation.  Christopherson  and  Sir  Henry  Sa- 
vile,  supported  by  Ruffinus,  read  "and  others,  forty,"  i.  e. 
forty  days.  But,  says  Valesius,  all  our  manuscripts  are 
opposed  to  this  reading,  and  point  the  passage  so  as  to  be 
rendered  thus:  "Others  measure  their  day  as  forty  diurnal 
and  nocturnal  hours."  f  This  very  variety  shows  that  the 
Liturgical  observance  was  not  so  minutely  regulated  by 
Apostolic  practice. 

The  observance  of  the  Ember  days  called  the  fasts  of 
the  Four  Seasons,  was  of  much  later  date.  At  least,  there 
is  no  evidence  by  which  we  can  trace  it  to  Apostolic  times. 

While  on  the  subject,  I  may  as  well  mention  the  Wednes- 
days, Fridays,  and  Saturdays,  and  the  Rogation-days.  The 
Wednesday  and  Friday  fasts  in  every  week  of  the  year,  the 
one  on  the  day  in  which  our  Lord  was  betrayed,  the  other 
on  that  in  which  he  was  crucified  for  the  sins  of  men,  are 
certainly  of  great  antiquity,  being  mentioned  incidentally  as 
practices  of  the  Church,  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  of  the 
Greeks,  and  Tertullian  of  the  Latins4  The  fast  of  Satur- 
day, substituted  for  that  of  Wednesday  by  the  Latin  Church, 
seems  to  have  been  introduced  merely  in  opposition  to  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  Our  reformers  did  not  renew  the  Wednes- 
day fast,  nor  continue  that  of  Saturday,  excepting  as  vigils. 
The  Rogation-days  were,  as  Bingham  observes,  begun  in 
France  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. §  Our  churches, 
therefore,  receive  and  sanction  these  ecclesiastical  customs 

»  E.  H.  lib.  V.  c.  23-25. 

t  Eus.  E.  H.  Ed.  Reading,  pp.  246-7,  and  note  6. 

X  Clem.  Alex.  ed.  Potter,  torn.  ii.  p.  877.     Ten.  de  Jejuniis,  c.  14. 

§  Ant.  book  xxi.  c.  2,  §  8. 


■F 


of  various  degrees  of  antiquity  on  the  ground  of  profitable 
usage,  not  of  divine  appointment.  We  claim  the  right,  un- 
der the  XXth  and  XXXIVth  articles,  of  doing  what  the  Latin 
Church  hath  done— continuing,  abolishing  or  changing  sucli 
observances,  according  as  we  find  them  profitable  or  unpro- 
fitable to  the  souls  of  men.  We  revere  antiquity,  univer- 
sality, and  consent ;  but,  with  Vincent  of  Lerins,  we  will 
ever  pronounce  our  solemn  anathema  against  "  any  thing 
that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  written."  It  is  for  this  rea- 
son that  we  think  it  unlawful  to  bind  on  men's  consciences 
any  particular  mode  of  fasting  or  abstinence.  The  very 
use  of  fasting  consists  in  its  freedom.  It  must  be  the  volun- 
tary oblation  of  every  devout  penitent,  who  knows  the 
plague  of  his  own  heart,  and  his  own  besetting  sins.  When 
welfast,  it  is  not  that  we  may  appear  unto  men  to  fast,  but 
unto  our  Father  which  seeth  in  secret. 

I  have  thus  finished  my  review  of  the  first  part  of  Dr. 
Milner's  End  of  Religious  Controversy.  It  has  been  occu- 
pied  in  considering  the  fundamental  principles,  on  which 
the  English  is  at  variance  with  the  Roman  Communion. 
These  fundamentals  are  essential  to  decide  the  important 
questions  respecting  the  Catholic  Church,  which  belong  to 
the  second  and  third  parts  of  Dr.  Milner's  work.  To  these 
I  shall  proceed  in  the  second  part  of  my  Reply. 


112  REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


DR.  MILNER's   QUOTATIONS. 


113 


of  the  quartodeciman  controversy  in  the  early  church,  arising 
from  the  single  point,  whether  the  days  of  the  week  or  the 
days  of  the  lunar  month  were  to  regulate  the  observance, 
afford  ample  proof  that  the  observance  itself  was  universal. 
But  in  the  meagre  account  which  Eusebius  gives  of  this 
controversy*  after  the  tenth  year  of  Commodus,  A.  D.  189, 
learned  men  are  not  yet  agreed  whether  "  the  fast  of  forty," 
mentioned  by  Irenceus,  was  a  fast  for  forty  days  or  forty 
hours.  "  Some,"  says  that  ancient  writer,  "  suppose  that 
they  ought  to  fast  one  day,  others,  two,  others,  more ;  and 
others  " .  Here  commences  the  difficulty,  all  depend- 
ing on  the  punctuation.  Christopherson  and  Sir  Henry  Sa- 
vile,  supported  by  Ruffinus,  read  "and  others,  forty,"  i.  e. 
forty  days.  But,  says  Valesius,  all  our  manuscripts  are 
opposed  to  this  reading,  and  point  the  passage  so  as  to  be 
rendered  thus  :  "  Others  measure  their  day  as  forty  diurnal 
and  nocturnal  hours."  f  This  very  variety  shows  that  the 
Liturgical  observance  was  not  so  minutely  regulated  by 
Apostolic  practice. 

The  observance  of  the  Ember  days  called  the  fasts  of 
the  Four  Seasons,  was  of  much  later  date.  At  least,  there 
is  no  evidence  by  which  we  can  trace  it  to  Apostolic  times. 

While  on  the  subject,  I  may  as  well  mention  the  Wednes- 
days, Fridays,  and  Saturdays,  and  the  Rogation-days.  The 
Wednesday  and  Friday  fasts  in  every  week  of  the  year,  the 
one  on  the  day  in  which  our  Lord  was  betrayed,  the  other 
on  that  in  which  he  was  crucified  for  the  sins  of  men,  are 
certainly  of  great  antiquity,  being  mentioned  incidentally  as 
practices  of  the  Church,  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  of  the 
Greeks,  and  TertuUian  of  the  Latins.ij:  The  fast  of  Satur- 
day, substituted  for  that  of  Wednesday  by  the  Latin  Church, 
seems  to  have  been  introduced  merely  in  opposition  to  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  Our  reformers  did  not  renew  the  Wednes- 
day fast,  nor  continue  that  of  Saturday,  excepting  as  vigils. 
The  Rogation-days  were,  as  Bingham  observes,  begun  in 
France  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. §  Our  churches, 
therefore,  receive  and  sanction  these  ecclesiastical  customs 

•  E.  H.  lib.  V.  c.  23-25. 

t  Eus.  E.  H.  Ed.  Reading,  pp.  246-7,  and  note  6. 

t  Clem,  Alex.  ed.  PoUer.  torn.  ii.  p.  877.     Ten.  de  Jejuniis,  c.  14. 

§  Ant.  book  xxi.  c.  2,  §  8. 


•S 


of  various  degrees  of  antiquity  on  the  ground  of  profitable 
usage,  not  of  divine  appointment.  We  claim  the  right,  un- 
der the  XXth  and  XXXIVth  articles,  of  doing  what  the  Latin 
Church  hath  done — continuing,  abolishing  or  changing  sucli 
observances,  according  as  we  find  them  profitable  or  unpro- 
fitable to  the  souls  of  men.  We  revere  antiquity,  univer- 
sality, and  consent ;  but,  with  Vincent  of  Lerins,  we  will 
ever  pronounce  our  solemn  anathema  against  "  any  thing 
that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  written."  It  is  for  this  rea- 
son that  we  think  it  unlawful  to  bind  on  men's  consciences 
any  particular  mode  of  fasting  or  abstinence.  The  very 
use  of  fasting  consists  in  its  freedom.  It  must  be  the  volun- 
tary oblation  of  every  devout  penitent,  who  knows  the 
plague  of  his  own  heart,  and  his  own  besetting  sins.  When 
we  fast,  it  is  not  that  we  may  appear  unto  men  to  fast,  but 
unto  our  Father  which  seeth  in  secret. 

I  have  thus  finished  my  review  of  the  first  part  of  Dr. 
Milner's  End  of  Religious  Controversy.  It  has  been  occu- 
pied in  considering  the  fundamental  principles,  on  which 
the  English  is  at  variance  with  the  Roman  Communion. 
These  fundamentals  are  essential  to  decide  the  important 
questions  respecting  the  Catholic  Church,  which  belong  to 
the  second  and  third  parts  of  Dr.  Milner's  work.  To  these 
I  shall  proceed  in  the  second  part  of  my  Reply. 


■^ 


PART  II. 


CHAPTER  I. 


'4 


i 

■A 

''■ji 


% 


THE    ONE    HOLY    CATHOLIC    AND   APOSTOLIC    CHTJRCH. 

It  is  now  more  than  twenty-five  years  since  I  first  read 
Dr.   Milner's    *'End   of  Religious  Controversy."     It   was 
then  read  carefully,  but  without  other  answer  than  my  own 
feeble  resources  could  supply.     Neither  of  Dr.  Grier's  an- 
swers, the  Reply,  or  the  Defence  of  that  Reply,  had  been  re- 
published in  this  country  ;  and  I  had  no  English  friend  who 
would  cai^  to  send  them  to  me.     I  have  subsequently  seen 
much  of  the  world,  and  have  had  much  experience  of  men 
and  things  ;  and  yet  I  do  assure  the  reader  of  these  pages  that 
on  the  re-perusal  of  Dr.  Milner's  work,  I  am  utterly  amazed ! 
I  say,  that  I  am  utterly  amazed  :  first,  that  any  could  then,  or 
can  now,  be  found,  among  the  candid,  and  learned,  and  virtuous 
minds  which  have  adorned,  or  do  still  adorn,  the  Roman  Com- 
munion, capable  of  recommending  his  work,  as  an  able  defence 
of  their  cause  ;  and  secondly,  at  the  triple  brass,  the  matchless 
eff*rontery,  of  Dr.  Milner,  in  seeking  so  to  impose  upon  the  ig- 
norance or  the  implicit  and  unscrutinizing  prejudices  of  his 
readers.  For,  not  to  dwell  upon  what  I  have  already  mentioned, 
his  quiet  assumption  of  the  very  point  at  issue  concerning  the 
Catholic  Church— (this  is  so  common  as  hardly  to  excite  sur- 
prise)— observe,  I  pray  you,  the  following  extract  from  his  fif- 
teenth letter  :  "  St.  Austin  reckons  up  ninety  heresies  which 
had  protested  against  the  church  before  his  time,  that  is,  dur- 
ing the  first  four  hundred  years  of  her  existence  ;  and  ecclesi- 
astical writers  have  counted  about  the  same  number,  who  rose 
up  since  that  period,  down  to  the  era  of  Luther's  protestation, 


116  REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Which  took  place  early  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  whereas,  from 
the  last  mentioned  era  to  the  end  of  the  same  century,  Staphy- 
lusand  Cardmal  Hosius  enumerated  Uoo  hundred  and  seventy 
different  sects  of  Protestants ;  and  alas!  how  have  Pro- 
testant sects,  beyond  reckoning  and  description,  multiplied 
dunng  the  last  two  hundred  years  !     Thus  has  the  observa- 
tion  of  the    above  cited   holy  father  "  (St.  Austin  or  Au- 
gustme)     been  verified  in  modern,  no   less  than  it  was  in 
former  ages,  where  he  exclaims  :  *  Into  how  many  morsels 
have  those  sects  been   broken  who  have  divided  themselves 
from  the   unity  of  the  Church  V "     And  here  Dr.  Milner 
quotes   in   the   margin,  "St.  Aug.  contra  Petolian    (sicy^ 
Ihe  three  books  against  Petilianus  occupy /or/^^t;/cW// 
printed  foho  pages  .'-But,  as  the  reader  has  become  familiar 
with  his  loose  way  of  quotation,  we  will  let  that  pass.     St 
Augustine,  he  says,  reckons  up  ninety  Protestant  sects  before 
ms    ime  !     Good,   innocent,  simple-minded,  modest  Dr.  Mil- 
ner  !     How  pleasant  the  insinuation,  that  the  Roman  Com- 
munion  is  now,  what  the  Church  was  in   St.   Augustine's 
time  !     And  that  all  Protestants  are  now,  what  the  ninety 
sorts  of  heretics  then  were  !     Pity  to  disturb  so  delightful  a 
dream,  by  the  stubborn   fact  thai,   in  St.  Au-ustine's  ti^e 
the  word  "  C«MoZ.V'  denoted  those  who   lll^  the  N^ne 
#  7^  "/^^-^/{c"  included  all  who  denied  that  faTth! 
The  edict  of  Gratian,  Valentinian   and   Theodosius,  which 
so  defines  these  terms,  was  dated  Feb.  27,  a.  d.  380    the 
year  before  the  Second  General  Council,  and   abouf  twent^ 
years  before  the  work  against  Petilianus  was  written  !  ^ 

n.l  T*  ^^^"^V'^^''«  not  ashamed  of  such  despicable  chN 
canery,  I  cannot  but  marvel  that  the  dignified  members  of 
^rtifirT^'"  can   stoop  to  give  their  imprimatur  to  such 

S  .t 'nhW?'"  .T'"  ^"^'^^"''  ^^^^  P^^^°"^  accustomed  to 
look  at  objects  within  a  narrow  sphere,  and   in  one  point  of 

view  only,  may  honestly  contract'prejudices,  which  Tn  after 
life  they  cannot,  overcome ;  but  still  it  is  a  mysterv  thai 
any  power  can  so  fetter  men,  who  are  confessedly  sL^^^^^^ 
natrrrX'ir'  well-informed.  Alas!  for  poJrTuman 
the  Fal  .  fn  1  """''  be  resolved  into  the  consequences  of 
nntbTn    /  ^i  ^'  ''^  ^'^.^"  ^"^^^^^^  "^  that  ruin,  from  which 

nn  hT^-  J  '^'  f  f  .'  °^.^^^  ^"  ^h^i^t  can  release  us,  let  us 
not  be  high-minded  but  fear.  ' 


m 


\M 


the  one  nOLY  CATHOLIC  AND  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.   117 

We  will  not,  and  cannot,  be  drawn  from  our  vantage 
ground,  by  the  wily  manceuvres  of  Dr.  Milner.  He  knew, 
and  his  brethren  now  cannot  but  know,  that  there  is  no 
debate  between  us  on  the  terms  of  the  ancient  creeds.  The 
Seventh  Article  of  the  Synod  of  London  in  1552,  the  same 
with  the  Eighth  Article  of  15B2,  says  :  "  The  three  Creeds, 
Nicene  Creed,  Athanasius's  Creed,  and  that  which  is  com- 
monly called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  ought  thorowly  to  be  re- 
ceived and  believed  ;  for  they  may  be  proved  by  most  certain 
warrants  of  Holy  Scripture."* 

Thus  far  therefore  owr /«?</*  is  that  of /^e  Catholic  Church 
at  the  end  of  the  first  four  general  Councih.  From  this  van- 
tage ground,  I  repeat,  we  cannot  and  will  not  be  driven ;  and 
it  is  an  unfair  use  of  terms  to  deny  us  the  name  of  Catholic, 
or  to  represent  the  debate  between  the  English  and  the  Ro- 
man Communions,  as  i^we  were  heretics,  a.ndthev  ihe  one  Holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  It  was  in  the  highest  degree 
dishonest,  and  it  cannot  but  move  our  indignation,  that  Dr. 
Milner  should  so  seek  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant  members 
of  either  communion.  Since  the  fourth  General  Council,  the 
state  of  the  Church  has  been  very  materially  altered.  They 
who  equally  maintain  the  great  principles  of  the  Ancient 
Creeds,  are  now  riven  into  separate  Communions.  The 
question  is  not  whether  there  ought  to  be  ww%,  but  who  has 
violated  the  unity  ?  The  question  is  not  whether  holiness 
should  be  the  badge  of  our  Christian  profession,  hut  which  of 
ihe  contending  parties  is  the  least  unholy  ?  The  question  is 
not  whether  we  should  he  Catholic  and  Apostolic,  but  who  are 
the  Catholic,  who  are  the  Apostolic  ?  On  these  points  we  are 
ready  to  join  issue.  Our  object  is  to  gather  together  in  one, 
the  scattered  and  divided  members  of  Christ's  fold  ;  to  per- 
fect holiness  on  Earth,  that  we  may  enjoy  it  in  Heaven  ;  to 
render  the  Church  truly  Catholic,  as  it  once  was ;  and,  for 
that  purpose,  to  restore  the  blessed  Communion  of  Apostolic 
fellowship.  "  That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare 
we  unto  you,  that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us  :  and 
truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ. "f 

*  Sparrow's  Collection,  p.  42  ;  comp.  with  p.  93. 
t  1  John  i.  3. 

6* 


iMHIHiaili*! 


118     REPLY  TO  MILNEr's  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


THE  ONE  HOLY  CATHOLIC  AND  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.    119 


We  are  willing  to  believe,  that  there  are  many  wise  and 
virtuous  members  of  the  Roman  Communion,  who  earnestly 
desire  the  very  same  things  ;  but  unhappily  Rome  has  bound 
herself  under  the  curse  of  Infalibility  ;  and  to  be  consistent, 
she  has  become  the  slave  of  her  own  system,  and  must  never 
abandon  what  she  has  once  adopted.  For  this  reason  we 
despair  of  her  reformation,  and  turn  to  the  Greek,  the  Arme- 
nian, and  the  Syrian,  rather  than  to  the  Latin.  They,  like 
ourselves,  retain  the  Nicene  faith,  and  therefore  come  within 
the  definition  of  the  rescript  of  Theodosius.  That  rescript, 
to  which  allusion  has  several  times  been  made,  shall  now  be 
inserted  entire  from  the  Theodosian  Code. 

"  The  Edict  of  Theodosius  the  Great  concerning  the 

Catholic  faith, 

"The  Edict  of  the  three  Emperors  and  Augusti,  Gratian 
Valentinian  and  Theodosius,  to  the  people  of  the  City  of  Con- 
stantinople. We  will  that  all  people  whom  the  moderation 
of  our  clemency  governs  should  abide  in  that  religion  which, 
that  the  divine  Apostle  Peter  delivered  to  the  Romans,  the 
religion  proclaimed  continually  from  him,  even  to  the  present 
time,  declares ;  which  it  is  evident,  the  Pontiff  Damasus 
follows,  and  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of  Apostolic 
sanctity,  that  according  to  the  Apostolic  discipline^  and  the 
Evangelical  doctrine,  we  should  helieve  the  one  Godhead  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  majesty  co-equal  and 
in  the  Holy  Trinity.  We  order  them,  following  this  law,  to 
embrace  the  name  of  Catholic  Christians  ;  but  adjudging  all 
others  to  bear  the  infamy  of  heretical  doctrine,  as  dementate 
and  insane,  and  their  conventicles  not  to  take  the  name  of 
Churches,  but  that  they  be  punished,  first  by  the  Divine  ven- 
geance, and  afterwards  by  that  of  our  pleasure,  which  we,  ac- 
cording to  the  Divine  will,  shall  impose.  Given  on  the  third 
day  before  the  kalends  of  March  [Febr.  27th],  at  Thessalo- 
nica,  in  the  Consulshipof  the  Augusti,  Gratian  V.  and  Theo- 
dosius I."  [a.  D.  380.] 

To  understand  the  language  of  this  Edict,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  for  forty  years,  under  the  favour  of  the  Empe- 
rors Constantius  and  Valens,  the  Arians  had  kept  possession 
of  the  Churches  of  Constantinople.     It  must  also  be  remem- 


[^ 


bered,  that  in  the  following  year  [a.  d.  381]  the  second  Gen- 
eral Council  assembled  at  Constantinople ;  and  that  Necta- 
rius,  a  layman  chosen  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  was 
then  and  there  consecrated  as  Bishop  of  the  vacant  see. 
Constantinople  was  then  elevated  to  rank  before  Alexandria, 
which  had  hitherto  been  the  second  city  of  the  Empire,  and 
the  third  Canon  of  the  Council  provided,  that  the  new  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  should  have  precedence  after  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  because  that  City  was  new  Rome,  This  Canon  was  af- 
terwards more  fully  established  and  explained  by  the  twenty- 
eighth  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  [a.d.  451]  ;  in 
which  it  was  said  that  "  the  Fathers  "  assembled  in  the  second 
general  Council  "  awarded  equal  privileges  with  ancient  Im- 
perial Rome,  to  the  most  holy  see  of  New  Rome,  rightly  judg- 
ing, that  a  city  honoured  with  Empire  and  a  Senate,  and  en- 
joying equal  privileges  with  ancient  Imperial  Rome,  should 
also  be  as  exalted  as  that  city  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  rank- 
ing next  to  it."  The  Edict  of  Theodosius,  having  been 
published  one  year  before  the  elevation  of  Constantinople, 
named  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  immediately  after  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ;  but  while  it  spoke  of  Damasus  who  was  then  living, 
for  he  did  not  die  till  a.  d.  384,  it  selected  Peter,  who  suffer- 
ed martyrdom  at  Alexandria,  nearly  eighty  years  earlier,  be- 
fore the  Arian  heresy  existed.  The  subsequent  insertion  of 
Constantinople,  between  Alexandria  and  Rome,  occasioned 
the  heart-burnings  which  led  to  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon ;  and  the  rivalry  between  Rome  and  Constantino- 
ple, finally  broke  out  into  a  permanent  schism,  and  shattered 
those  who  had  till  that  time  been  called  Catholics,  to  the  four 
winds  of  heaven.  Iftl^e  Greeks,  the  Armenians,  or  the 
Syrians,  have,  in  any  measure,  departed  from  the  primitive 
purity  of  the  Catholic  Church,  they  are  not,  at  least,  like  the 
Latins,  so  headstrong  in  error  as  to  be  incapable  of  reform. — 
To  them,  therefore,  do  we  look,  as  to  Christians  of  Apostolic 
descent,  whose  fine  gold  may  be  somewhat  dimmed  by  the 
calamities  they  have  long  suffered,  but  who  have  within 
themselves  that  organic  power,  which,  by  impulses  derived 
from  us,  may  recover  its  pristine  vigour,  and  restore  them  to 
their  former  brilliancy  and  beauty.  The  only  tenable 
ground,  in  the  present  condition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is 
that  which   we  hold,  by  retreating  to  the  first  four  General 


120 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


THE    CREED   OF    POPE   PIUS    IV. 


121 


Councils  as  the  time  when  Catholic  faith  and  order  were  still 
"  whole  and  undefiled. '' 

This  being  the  true  issue,  I  am  relieved  in  great  mea- 
sure from  all  consideration  of  Dr.  Milner's  second  part,  from 
the  thirteenth  to  the  thirtieth  letters  inclusive.  To  correct 
all  his  unfair  quotations  from  English  writers ;  to  expose  his 
artful  attempts  to  fasten  upon  the  Church  of  England  the 
recreant  conduct  of  base  and  degenerate  sons ;  would  be  an 
almost  endless,  and  certainly  a  very  unprofitable  and  loath- 
some task.  I  have  already  shown  his  dishonesty,  or  his 
ignorance,  in  the  quotations  he  has  pretended  to  make  from 
the  writers  of  the  early  church.  Is  not  this  enough  to  put 
my  readers  on  their  guard  against  his  treatment  of  modern 
authors  ?  What  if  he  succeedsjn  showing,  that  such  men 
as  Hoadly  and  Blackburn  were  sutTered,  in  a  lax  and  down- 
ward age,  to  hold  their  preferments  ?  What  does  this  prove, 
but  that  tares  were  sown  in  the  night  lime,  while  men  slept, 
and  that,  for  fear  of  rooting  up  the  good  grain,  they  were 
suffered  to  remain  until  the  harvest  ?  I  am  no  apologist  for 
laxity  of  discipline ;  and  I  am  ready  to  admit,  that  we  are 
in  danger  of  erring  on  the  side  of  indulgence.  But  this 
error  is  better  than  the  opposite  one  of  persecution.  The 
brave  Briton  said  of  the  Roman  legions,  '*  Ubi  soUiudinem 
faciunt  pacem  appellant."  They  lay  waste  and  call  it 
peace  !*  Such  is  the  boasted  unity  and  tranquillity  of  the 
Roman  Communion ! 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE    CREED    OF    POPE    PIUS    IV. 


In  his  XVIth  letter  on  Catholic  Unity,  Dr.  Milner  main- 
tains, "  as  a  notorious  fact,  that  this  original  and  great 
church  is,  and  ever  has  been,  strictly  one  ....  in  lier  faith 
and  terms  of  conmiunien.  The  some  creeds,  namely,  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  the  Alhanasian  Creed, 
and  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  /F.,  drawn  up  in  conformity 

*  Tao.,  Agricola,  xxx. 


if.- 


I 


with  the  definitions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  are  every  where 

recited  and  professed  to  the  strict  letter throughout 

the  four  quarters  of  the  glohe,  from  Ireland  to  Chili,  and 
from  Canada  to  India."  This  braying  of  trumpets  may  do 
admirably  well  with  people  who  are  influenced  more  by  sound 
than  sense ;  but  how  does  he  prove  it  ?  Go,  he  says,  to  the 
Royal  Exchange  (!)  and  talk  with  intelligent  Catholic  mer- 
cants  from  the  several  countries  in  question.  Interrogate 
"  the  poor  illiterate  Irish,  and  other  Catholic  foreigners  who 
traverse  the  country  in  various  directions.'^  This  last  expres- 
sion, we  suppose  is  by  euphony  for  Catholic  peddlers  ;  as  the 
Furies  were  called  by  the  Greeks,  the  venerable  goddesses. 
All  these,  says  Dr.  Milner,  "  if  properly  interrogated,  will 
confess  their  belief  in  one  comprehensive  article  ;  namely 
this,  /  believe  luhatever  the  holy  Catholic  Church  believes  and 
teaches.''  Yes  :  no  doubt  of  it !  Once  acknowledge  that 
the  Roman  Communion  is  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  and  the 
Irishers,  and  the  peddlers,  and  the  East-Indians,  brought  up 
under  the  Inquisition  at  Goa,  and  the  Chilians,  (and  why  not 
also  the  Peruvians  and  Mexicans,)  will  imitate  the  cautious 
monk,  who  could  not  be  made  to  utter  heresy,  by  all  the  arts 
of  the  tempter!  "What  do  you  believe?"  said  Satan. 
"  What  the  Church  believes,"  replied  the  Monk.  "  And 
what  does  the  Church  believe  ?"  rejoined  Satan.  "  What  I 
believe,"  said  the  Monk. 

Do  you  laugh,  or  do  you  weep  at  such  folly  ?  It  has 
been  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
the  Nicene  Creed,  and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  contain  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  for  the  first  five  centuries.  It 
is  precisely  "  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  drawn  up  in  con- 
formity loith  the  definitions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  which 
has  raised  the  wall  of  separation  between  us  and  the  Roman 
Communion. 

As  the  Bull  of  that  Pope,  by  which  was  established  what 
is  called  his  Creed,  may  not  be  easily  accessible  to  many  of 
my  readers,  I  think  it  important  to  give  them  here  a  summary 
of  its  contents. 

Its  title  is,  "  concerning  the  form  of  the  oath  to  be  taken 
as  to  the  profession  of  faith  ;"  and  it  begins,  by  reciting  the 
substance  of  the  decree  in  the  twenty-fourth  session  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  requires  all  beneficed  persons,  hav- 


MM 


122 


REPLY    TO    MILNE RS   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


THE    CREED    OF   POPE    PITTS    IV. 


123 


ing  the  cure  of  souls,  to  make  such  public  profession,  prom- 
ising and  swearing  to  remain  in  permanent  obedience  to  the 
Roman  Church,  it  includes  all  the  regular  and  military  or- 
ders, and  in  fact  every  one  who,  in  an  official  capacity,  can 
influence  the  popular  belief.  The  Oath  begins  as  follows  : 
"  I,  N,  with  firm  faith,  believe  and  profess,  all  and  singular, 
whatsoever  is  contained  in  the  symbol  of  faith  used  by  the 
Holy  Roman  Church.'  It  then  recites  the  Niceno»<^reed  ; 
after  which,  assuming  that  the  "  One,  Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  "    of  that  creed,   means  exclusively  the 

.  Holy  Roman  Church  and  those  only  who  are  in  her  commu- 
nion, it  proceeds  thus  : 

1.  "  I  most  firmly  admit  and  embrace  the  Apostolical  and 
Ecclesiastical  traditions,  and  all  other  observances  and  con- 
stitutions of  the  said  Church. 

'  2.  "  I  admit  also  Holy  Scripture,  according  to  that  sense 
which  holy  Mother  Church,  to  whom  it  appertains  to  judge  of 
the  true  meaning  and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
hath  holden  and  stills  holds ;  nor  will  I  ever  receive  and 
interpret  them  otherwise,  than  according  to  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Fathers. 

3.  "  I  profess,  likewise,  that  there  are  truly  and  properly 
seven  Sacraments  of  the  new  law,  instituted  by  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  mankind, 
though  not  all  of  them  to  every  one  ;  namely,  Baptism,  Con- 
firmation, the  Eucharist,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction,  Orders 
and  Matrimony ;  and  that  they  confer  grace  ;  and  that  of 
these.  Baptism,  Confirmation  and  Orders,  cannot  be  repeated 
without  sacrilege.  1  receive  also  and  admit  the  received  and 
approved  rites  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  the  solemn  admin- 
istration of  all  the  aforesaid  sacraments. 

4.  "  I  embrace  and  receive  all  things  and  every  thing 
(omnia  et  singula)  which  have  been  defined  and  declared  by 
the  holy  Council  of  Trent,  concerning  original  sin  and  justi- 
fication. 

5.  "  I  equally  profess,  that  in  the  mass  is  oflTered  unto  God 
a  true  proper  and  propitiatory  sacrifice,  for  the  living  and 
the  dead  ;  and  that,  in  the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist,  there  is  really,  truly,  and  substantially,  the  body 
and  blood,  together  with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and,  that  a  conversion  is  made  of  the  whole 


substance  of  the  bread  into  his  body,  and  of  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  wine  into  his  blood ;  which  conversion  the 
Catholic  Church  calls  Transubstantiation. 

6.  "  I  confess  also,  that  under  one  kind  only,  is  received 
the  whole  and  entire  Christ,  and  the  true  sacrament. 

7.  "  I  constantly  maintain,  that  there  is  a  Purgatory,  and 
that  the  souls  detained  there  are  assisted  (juvari)  by  the 
prayers  {suffragiis)  of  the  faithful. 

8.  "  Likewise,  that  the  saints,  who  reign  together  with 
Christ,  are  to  be  venerated  and  invoked ;  and  that  they  offer 
prayers  for  us  to  God ;  and  that  their  relics  are  to  be  ven- 
erated. 

9.  "  I  most  firmly  assert,  that  the  images  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  ever-virgin  mother-of-God,  as  also  of  the  other  saints, 
are  to  be  had  and  retained  ;  and  that  due  honour  and  venera- 
tion must  be  given  to  them. 

10.  "I  affirm  also,  that  the  power  of  Indulgences  was 
left  by  Christ  in  his  Church ;  and  that  the  use  of  them  is 
very  salutary  to  Christian  people. 

11.  "I  acknowledge  the  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic 
Church  of  Rome,  to  be  the  mother,  and  mistress  of  all 
Churches ;  and  I  promise,  and  swear  true  obedience  to  the 
Roman  Pontiflf,  successor  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  St. 
Peter,  and  the  Vicegerent  of  Jesus  Christ. 

12.  "I  do,  likewise,  without  doubt,  receive  all  other 
things  which  have  been  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by 
the  sacred  Canons,  and  CEcumenical  Councils,  and  especially, 
by  the  holy  Council  of  Trent ;  and  all  heresies  whatsoever, 
condemned,  rejected,  and  anathematized  by  the  Church,  I  do 
in  like  manner  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize. 

"  This  true  Catholic  faith,  out  of  which  no  one  can  be 
saved,  which  at  this  present  time  I  voluntarily  profess  and 
truly  hold,  I,  the  aforesaid  N,  do  promise,  vow,  and  swear, 
most  constantly  to  retain  and  profess  (by  God's  help)  entire 
and  inviolate  to  the  last  breath  of  my  life  ;  and  I  will  take 
care,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  that  the  same  be  holden,  taught, 
and  preached  by  all  who  are  subject  to  my  control,  or  who, 
by  virtue  of  my  office,  shall  appertain  to  my  charge. 

"So  help  me  God,  and  these  the  Holy  Gospels  of  God." 

Tkds  oath  was  published  at  Rome,  on  the  13th  of  Novem- 
ber, A.   D.  1564  ;  and  has  now,   for  nearly  three  hundred 


124 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


years,  been  exacted  with  the  most  unrelenting  severity.  All 
comment  upon  it  would  be  superfluous.  It  stands  before  my 
readers  in  all  its  naked  horror.  Oh !  how  burthened  is  every 
soul  whicli  lies  crushed  under  its  scorching  and  withering 
weight !  What  gratitude  do  not  we  owe  to  God's  mercies, 
that  the  English  reformation  began  in  1534,  and  that  the  two 
councils  of  London,  of  1552  and  1562,  furnished  us  with 
articles,  which  will  ever  be  a  standing  bulwark  against  its 
tyranny ! 

Of  the  twelve  articles  into  which  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius 
IV.  is  resolved,  the  first  two  have  been  sufficiently  consider- 
ed. The  remaining  ten  require  to  be  examined,  and  the  first 
of  these  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Seven  Sacraments,  to  which 
we  shall  now  proceed. 


CHAPTER   III. 


THE     SEVEN     SACRAMENTS. 


The  decree  concerning  the  Sacraments,  was  passed  at 
the  seventh  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  on  the  third  of 
March,  a.  d.  1547  ;  and  the  first  and  fourth  Canons  are  as 
follows  : 

1.  "If  any  shall  say  that  the  Sacraments  of  the  new  law 
were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ;  or  that  they 
are  more,  or  fewer  than  seven,  namely.  Baptism,  Confirma- 
tion, the  Eucharist,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction,  Orders  and 
Matrimony  ;  or  even  that  any  one  of  these  seven,  is  not  truly 
and  properly  a  sacrament,  let  him  be  accursed. 

4.  "  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  the  Sacraments  of  the  new 
law  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  but  superfluous  ;  and  that 
none  can  obtain  the  grace  of  justification  from  God,  without 
them,  or  the  vow  of  them  (eorum  voto),  by  faith  alone, 
although  all  are  not  necessary  to  every  one  (omnia  singulis), 
let  him  be  accursed. '' 

The  last  expression,  non  omnia  singulis,  applies  only  to 
Orders  and  Matrimony ;  and,  with  this  exception,  there  is 


THE    SEVEN    SACRAMENTS. 


125 


bound  upon  men's  consciences,  with  the  most  dreadfully  frivo- 
lous  minuteness,  the  belief  of  seven  sacraments,  neither  more 
nor  less,  as  all  instituted  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  neces- 
sary to  our  justification  from  God,  and  our  eternal  salvation  ! 
The  Latin  word  sacramentum,  the  source  of  the  English, 
sacrament,  denoted  a  solemn  pledge,  and  a  solemn  oath.  In 
the  latter  sense,  it  meant  especially  the  oath  taken  by  soldiers 
to  serve  under  their  general ;  and  Herodian  call  iiTi]g'^P(o- 
fiaiiav  uQXJjg  uffivov  (Avan'i^iov,  the  awful  mystery  of  Roman  do- 
mination. *  The  etymon  of  this  Greek  word  is  somewhat 
uncertain.  Suidas  derives  it  from  ^viiv  to  aio^a,  to  shut  the 
mouth  ;  the  moderns,  from  a  Hebrew  word  which  signifies  to 
conceal.  But  all  agree  that  it  means  a  secret, — something 
recondite,  whether  still  hidden,  or  to  some  extent  revealed. 
In  this  double  signification,  then,  of  anoai/iand  ix  secret,  must 
the  word  sacrament  be  understood  ;  the  Greek  writers  in- 
clining to  the  sense  of  secret,  because  they  use  the  word 
"  mystery;  "  the  Latin  writers  to  that  of  an  oath  or  pledge  of 
fidelity,  because  they  use  the  word  sacramentum.  In  the  twen- 
ty-six passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word 
fivarriQiov,  mystery,  is  found,  the  ancient  Latin  version,  as 
given  by  Sabatier,  renders  it  thirteen  times  by  sacramentum, 
and  thirteen  times  uses  the  same  word  mysterium.  In  one 
manuscript,  copied  by  Bianchini,  St.  Matt.  xiii.  11,  "to  know 
the  mysteries,  "  is  rendered  scire  arcana,  to  know  the  se- 
crets, f  St.  Jerome,  in  his  translation,  uses  the  word  "  myste- 
rium "  eighteen  times  ;  and  in  Colos.  i.  27,  where  the  an- 
cient version  reads  "  divitias  glorioe  mysterii  Dei  inter  gen- 
tes  "  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  the  mystery  of  God  among 
the  Gentiles,  he  translates,  "  divitias  glorise  sacramenti 
hujus,"  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  sacrament.  In  Rom. 
xvi.  25,  on  the  other  hand,  where  the  ancient  version  reads, 
"  revelationem  sacramenti,  "  he  reads,  as  in  our  translation, 
"  revelationem  mysterii,''^ — the  revelation  of  the  mystery.  In 
seven  places  only,  do  the  two  versions  agree  in  using  the 
word  sacramentum  ;  and  one  of  these  is  Rev.  xvii.  7,  "  I 
will  tell  thee  the  sacrament  of  the  woman  and  of  the  beast 
that  carrieth  her,  which  hath  the  seven  heads  and  ten  horns." 


*  Herod,  lib.  viii.  7,  8.     Ap.  Casaubon,  Exercitat.  xvi.  43. 
t  Evang.  Quadr.  torn.  \.  xcviii 


126 


REPLY   TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


The  Rhemish  Translation,  which  follows  that  of  St.  Jeronne 
fis  its  shadow,  reading  sacrament,  where  that  reads  sacramen- 
tuniy  and  mysterie  where  that  reads  mysterium,  has,  in  this 
last  text,  departed  from  its  prototype,  and  reads,  "  I  wil  tel  thee 
the  mysterie  of  the  woman,  and  of  the  beast  that  carrieth  her, 
which  hath  the  seven  heades,  and  the  ten  homes.  "  For  what 
reason  it  has  done  this.  Dr.  Milner  might  doubtless  have  told, 
and  his  brethren  could  now  tell ;  but  what  right  had  the  Je- 
suits of  Rheims,  in  their  English  translation,  so  to  misrepre- 
sent that  old  and  Vulgate  edition,  which  the  Council  of  Trent 
declared  to  be  authentic  and  required,  under  the  penalty  of 
a  curse,  to*bc  used  in  all  public  readings,  disputations, 
preachings,  and  expositions  !  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Mr.  New- 
man, in  his  review  of  their  version,  will  correct  their  audacity, 
and  restore  the  authentic  "sacrament !" 

The  word  mystery,  it  has  been  observed,  signifies  a  secret, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  revealed.  In  this  sense,  it  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament.  To  the  extent  of  the  revelation,  it 
is  a  mystery  made  known  ;  beyond  that  extent,  it  is  still  hid- 
den. The  word  of  God  reveals  a  fact;  but  for  the  trial  of 
our  faith,  does  not  reveal  the  reason  of  that  fact,  or  themocZe 
of  its  operation.  The  fact,  for  instance,  that  God  was  in 
Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  was  revealed  by 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  It  was  the  purpose  of  God, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  ;  but  had  been  kept  secret 
from  men,  having  been  so  obscurely  predicted  in  "the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  prophets,"  that  it  was  not  understood  till  the  com- 
ing of  Christ.  That  event,  having  explained  the  prophets, 
all  men  might  now  see,  by  comparing  the  facts  and  predic- 
tions together,  that  such  was  the  original  design  of  the  Al- 
mighty, and  thus,  the  mystery  being  "  made  known  to  all 
nations,  "  might  produce  in  them  "  the  obedience  of  faith."  * 
The  FACT  of  the  reconciliation  with  God,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
being  made  known,  is  no  longer  a  myst&ry ;  but  it  is  the  sim- 
^\efact  only  which  has  been  revealed.  When  we  begin  to 
inquire,  why  and  how  the  death  of  Christ  could  produce  so 
powerful  an  effect,  we  are  immediately  involved  in  the  ob- 
scurity of  those  secret  things  which  belong  unto  the  Lord 
our  God.     "  A  mystery  "  says  St.  Chrysostom,  "  is  not  to  be 


*  Rom.  xvi.  25,  26,  coinp.  with  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  iv.  1,  Ephes.  i.  9,  &c. 


THE   SEVEN   SACRAMENTS. 


127 


proved  or  demonstrated  ;  but  what  it  is,  that  alone  is  declar- 
ed to  us.  "* 

Eph.  V.  32  :  "  This  is  a  great  mystery  ;  but  I  speak 
concerning  Christ  and  the  Church.  "  It  appears  to  have 
been  a  received  interpretation  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
that  the  taking  of  the  woman  from  the  side  of  the  man,  was 
intended  to  represent  the  union  of  the  most  High  God  with 
his  people ;  which  is  commonly  represented,  in  the  propheti- 
cal writings,  under  the  metaphor  of  a  marriage,  f  What  the 
Jews  thus  applied  to  the  most  High  God  the  Apostle  here 
affirms  concerning  Christ ;  that  the  original  institution  of 
marriage,  and  the  peculiar  mode  of  forming  the  first  woman, 
was  intended  by  God  to  denote  the  formation  of  the  Church, 
and  her  union  with  Christ  her  head.  Adam  is  expressly 
called:}:  "  a  type  of  him  who  was  to  come;  "  and  Christ§  "  the 
last  Adam.  "  The  Catholic  Church  is  called||  "  the  body  of 
Christ;"  and  in  allusion  to  the  formation  of  Eve,  the  several 
members  of  the  Church  are  said  to  be  "  members  of  his  body,  of 
his  flesh  and  of  his  bones."ir  Eve  was  the  mother  of  all  living, 
in  the  natural  sense ;  the  Church,  the  mother  of  all  living,  in 
the  spiritual  sense.  As  Eve  was  formed  of  a  rib  taken  out 
of  Adam's  body  during  his  deep  sleep,  so  was  the  Church 
formed  from  the  broken  body  of  the  second  Adam,  during 
his  deep  sleep,  which  began  upon  the  cross.  "  The  Son  of 
God,"  says  Theophylact,  "  left  his  Father,  not  by  a  change  of 
place,  but  by  condescending  to  become  incarnate,  and  came 
unto  his  bride  with  whom  he  became  one  Spirit."  "  The  great 
Apostle,"  says  St.  Gregory  Nyssen,  "  calls  the  union  of  two, 
in  the  communion  of  one  body,  the  great  mystery  of  the 
union  of  Christ  with  the  Church."**  Now,  that  the  creation 
and  union  of  Adam  and  Eve  were  intended,  in  the  design  of 
God,  to  point  out  the  union  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  was  a 
fact,  which  no  one  could  know  till  it  was  revealed.  It  was 
a  great  mystery,  hidden  from  men  till  Christ  had  come  ;  and 
we  should  have  no  right  to  make  this  application  of  that  pas- 
sage of  Genesis,  unless  the  Apostle  had  been  commissioned  to 

*  In  Epist.  ad  Cor.  Horn.  7,  §  1. 
t  See  Grotius  and  Hammond  in  loco.       |  Rom.  v.  14. 
§  1  Cor.  XV.  45.  II  Ephes  i.  23.  IT  Ephes.  v.  30. 

**  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  voce  nvarfipiov,  for  these  and  other  quota- 
tions. 


128  REPLY    TO   milker's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


reveal  it.  But  is  not  the  union  of  Christ  with  his  Church 
still  mysterious,  in  every  respect,  excepting  the  bare  fact  ? 
We  know  that  Christ  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  the  Church,by 
the  means  of  grace  which  he  hath  given  to  her.  But  the  va- 
rious methods  by  which  his  mighty  operations  are  conducted, 
that  He  may  present  her  to  himself,  at  the  last  day,  without 
spot  or  wrinkle,  are  now  concealed  from  the  view  of  sense  ; 
and  we  must  be  cautious  not  to  attempt  to  explain  what  will 
continue  to  be  concealed  till  faith  is  lost  in  vision. 

Rev.    xvii.  5:  "And  upon  her   forehead   was  a  name 
written,*  mystery,  babylon  the    great,  the  mother    of 

HARLOTS    AND    ABOMINATIONS    OF    THE    EARTH.— 7.    And    tne 

ancrel  said  unto  me,  Wherefore  didst  thou  marvel  ?     I  will 
telf  thee  the  mystery  of  the  woman  and  of  the  beast  that  car- 
rieth  her,  which  hath  the  seven  heads  and  ten  horns.        In 
both  verses  the  ancient  Latin  version  reads,  for  mystery,  5a- 
cramentuvi.     St.  Jerome's  version  has,  v.  5,  mysterium,  and  v. 
7,  sacravientum.     It  appears  from  the  prophets,  especially 
Ezekiel  and  Hosea,  that  a  harlot  was  the  type  of  an  apostate 
and  idolatrous  Church;  but  as  the  nation  of  Israel  was  no 
lon-er  the  church  of  the  Lord,  St.  John  must  have  perceived 
that  "  the  mother  of  harlots   meant  some  future    thnstian 
Church  which  would  become  corrupt.     As  the   church  ot 
Israel  had  suffered  captivity  in   Babylon  the  seat  oi  pagan 
idolatry,  the  name  Bahylon  became  a  symbol  ot  this  idola- 
trous  Church,  a  mystery  or  symbolic  representation,     ihis 
mystery  excited  the  astonishment  of  St.  John  ;  upon  which 
the  Angel  so  far  explained  it,  as  to  show  that  it  meant  Rome, 
and   the   Church  of  Rome.     This  sense  of  the  mystery  is 
acknowledged  by  Bossuet,  only  that  he  applies  liio  Rome 
Paean,  and  not  to  Rome  Christian ;  for  he  says,  ''  Sous  le 
nom  de  la  Prostituee  c'est  Babylonne,  et  sous  le  nom  do 
Babylonne  c'est  Rome,  c'est  le  sens  le  plus  nature!.— Un 
voit  done  pourquoy  Saint  Jean  represente  Rome  sous  le  nom 
de  Babylon  dont  elle  avoit  tons  les  caractcres,  dominante 
comme  elle,  comme  elle  pleine  d'idoles,  et  de  divinations,  et 
persecutrice  des  Saints  qu'elle  tenoit  captifs."*     I  quote  at 
second  hand  and  therefore  quote  the  original  words,  because 
I  have  here  followed  Dr.  Milner's  usual  practice,  in  quoting 

*  Bossuet,  as  quoted  by  Lowman,  p.  252,  note  d. 


THE    SEVEN    SACRAMENTS. 


129 


a  book  I  have  never  read.  It  may  be  that  Lowman  took  only 
so  much  of  Bossuet  as  suited  his  purpose.  For  this  I  will 
not  answer;  but  it  is  clear  that  Bossuet  understood,  as  we 
understand,  thefact  revealed,  that  the  beast  with  seven  heads 
and  ten  horns,  meant  Rome.  This  passage  may  properly  be 
compared  with  what  St.  Paul  says,  2  Thess.  ii.  7,  8,  of  the 
mystery  of  iniquity,  which  was  even  then  working,  but  was 
let  or  hindered,  or  restrained  by  some  one  "  until  he  be  taken 
out  of  the  way."  The  active  existence  of  the  mystery  was 
affirmed,  but  was  not  then  revealed,  and  its  nature  could  not 
be  known  till  the  hinderance  by  which  it  was  checked,  should 
be  removed.  This  hindrance  the  Fathers  with  great  una- 
nimity believed  to  be  the  Roman  Empire ;  the  western  branch 
of  which  was  destroyed  by  Odoacer,  a.  d.  476,  and  the  east- 
ern branch,  by  Mahomet  II.,  a.  d.  1453. 

These  examples  are  sufficient  to  show,  how  the  word 
translated  mystery  or  sacrament  was  used  by  the  inspired 
writersof  the  New  Testament.  And  from  that,  as  its  proper 
fountain,  flowed  the  usage  of  the  early  Ecclesiastical  writers. 
They,  full  of  faith,  with  fervent  affections,  and  vivid  imagi- 
nations, saw  Christ  every  where.  With  them,  as  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  word  mystery  signified,  as  clearly  and 
briefly  expressed  by  Schleusner,  "  any  thing  or  doctrine 
hidden,  and  formerly  or  still  unknown  by  men  ;  every  thing 
new  and  unheard  of,  or  so  profound,  obscure  and  sublime  that 
it  cannot  be  easily  perceived  or  understood,  or  is  evidently 
superior  to  human  comprehension.^^  In  the  Gospels,  the  para- 
bles are  called  mysteries  or  secrets,  because,  under  a  simple 
and  perfectly  intelligible  story,  was  couched  a  more  secret 
and  recondite  application.  A  parable  was  an  allegory  ;  a 
representation  of  one  thing  intended  to  excite  the  idea  of 
another  ;  the  immediate  representation,  a  narrative ;  the  ulti- 
mdte  representation,  some  moral  truth. 

From  this  use  of  the  term  "  mystery"  to  denote  an  alle- 
gorical narrative,  the  transition  was  easy  and  natural  to  sym- 
bolical representations.  In  Rev.  i.  20,  the  mystery,  or 
symbolical  representation  of  the  seven  candlesticks,  denoted 
the  seven  churches  of  Asia;  and  the  seven  stars,  the  seven 
Angels  or  Bishops,  who  presided  over  them.  So,  as  we  have 
seen.  Rev.  xvii.  5,  7,  the  mystery,  or  symbolical  representa- 
tion of  a  woman  carried  on  a  beast,  denoted  a  church  having 
spiritual  and  temporal  dominion  ov*  the  Roman  Empire. 


130  REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


In  a  similar  sense,  the  ancient  Christian  writers  called 
Baptism  and  the  Eucharist  or  Lord's  Supper,  mysteries.    The 
death  of  Christ  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the 
meritorious  cause  of  the   forj^iveness  of  our  sins,  and  the 
sanctification  of  our  nature.     We  are  therefore,  figuratively, 
said  to  be  washed  by  him  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood, 
The  rite,  therefore,  by  which  we  are  made  partakers  of    his 
deatht  is  that  of  washing  with  water,  a  mystery,  or  symbolic 
representation,  in  which,  under  the  outward  and  visible  sign  of 
water,  is  meant  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  purchased  for  us 
by  the  death  of  our  Redeemer.  In  like  manner,  the  Lord  s  Sup- 
per is  a  mystery,  or  symbolical  representation,  in  which  under 
the  outward  and  visible  sign  of  breaking  bread  and  pouring  out 
wine,  is  represented  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  which 
our  souls  are  nourished  to  eternal  life.     Thus  St.  Chrysos- 
torn,  in  his  85th  Homily  upon  St.  John's  Gospel,  cap.  xix.  v. 
34,  says,  *'  there  issued  water  and   blood  ;  not  by  chance  or 
unmeaningly  did  these  fountains  break  forth,  but  because  by 
both  the  Church   is  constituted.     This  know  they  who  are 
admitted  to  the  mysteries,  being  regenerated   by  water,  and 
nourished   by   flesh  and  blood.     Hence  the  mysteries  take 
their  origin."     So  again,  Horn.  118:  "From  his  side,  after 
he  was  dead,  truly  came  forth  blood   and  water  as  a  type  of 
the   mysteries.''     So   Theophylact    upon    St.  John  xix.  34 : 
"  This  was  not  done   without  signification  ;  since   by  these 
two  the  life  of  the  Church  is  given  and  supported.^^   By  water 
we  are  born  ;  by  his  body  and  blood  we  are  fed." 

The  Latin  fathers  seem  to  have  used  the  two  words  mys- 
terium  and  sacramentum  indiflerently,  oftentimes  using  the 
latter  in  their  quotations,  where  the  former  occurred  in  the 
text.  Thus,  St.  Augustine  often  quotes  Rom.  xi.  25,  "  I 
would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,''  Nolo 
vos  ignorare  fratres  hoc  sacramentum  ;"  where  the  ancient 
version  as  well  as  that  of  St.  Jerome  reads  mysterium.  And 
so,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Ephes.  v.  32,  where  both  versions 
reo-di  sacramentum  the  ancient  translator  of  Irenajus,  Hilary, 
and  the  Pseudo-Ambrosius  read  mysterium.  Tertullian,  in 
quoting  this  text,  sometimes  reads  sacramentum,  and  some- 
times mysterium.  It  is  apparent,  then,  that  the  word  sacra- 
ment was  used  by  the  Latins  in  the  same  extended  meaning 


*  Rev.  i.  5. 


t  Rom.  vi.  3,  4. 


THE    SEVEN    SACRAMENTS. 


131 


as  the  word  ?nysiery  among  the  Greeks;    and  consequently 
the  disputes  which  arose  at  the  Reformation,  about  the  num. 
per  of  the  sacraments,  would  have  been  a  mere  war  of  words 
if  both  parties  had  not  limited  the  definition  of  the  term  so  as 
to  comprehend  only  those  outward  and  visible  signs,  or  sym- 
bols of  an  mward  and  spiritual  grace,  which  were  instituted 
and  ordamed  by  Christ  himself.     "  There  is  nothincr,"  says 
the   learned  and   candid    Bingham,  "  more  usual    with  the 
ancients  than  this  way  of  speaking,  to  call  every  sacred  rite 
or  ceremony  used  in  the  Church,  by  the  name  of  a  sacrament 
or  mystery.'    They  divided  "the  proper  sacraments,  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist,  each  of  them  into  two  or  more,  meaning 
the  several  parts  or  rites  belonging  to  them.     Thus  Isidore 
speaks  of  four  sacraments  in  the  Church,  which  are  Baptism, 
Chrism,  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  the  Blood  of  Christ.". . 
"The  like  style  is  used  by  Pope  Innocent,  when  he  calls  the 
Bread  and  Wine  sacraments,  in  the  plural.     And  Fulbertus 
Carnotensis  is  more  express   when  he  says.  There  are  two 
sacraments  of  life,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.     No  wonder 
therefore  the  same  author  should  call  the  immersion  in  wa- 
ter, and  the  unction  of  Chrism,  conveying  the  Spirit,  by  the 
name  of  the  two  sacraments  of  Baptism."     "  It  were  easy  to 
add  abundance  more  of  such  expressions  out  of  other  au- 
thors.  * 

Fulbertus,  the  last  author  mentioned  by  Bingham,  died 
m  A.  D.  1028,t  and  i"  a.  d.  1013,  Pope  Adrian  issued  a  bull, 
in  which  mention  is    made    of  the  sacrament  of  Pope    St 
Gregory,  meaning  thereby  the  relics  of  that  saint.  Du  Cano-e 
who  IS  my  authority  for  this,^  mentions  several  other  instances 
ot  the  like  kind ;  from  which  it  would  seem,  that  this  loose 
mode  of  using  the  word  sacrament,  was  common  in  the  West 
m  the  eleventh  century.  Indeed  Cassander  asserts  that "  you   ' 
will  hardly  find  any  one  of  the  writers,  before  Peter  Lom- 

*  Sing-  Antiq.  book  xii.  eh.  i.  sec.  4.  The  above  is  the  substance 
of  two  Essays  written  in  1821,  and  published  in  the  April  and  May 
numbers  of  the  Gospel  Advocate.  The  author  has  seen  no  reason  since 
then  to  change,  and  would  now  have  referred  his  readers  to  them  if  the 
Gospel  Advocate  had  not  followed  the  fate  of  all  such  periodicals,  that  of 
utter  oblivion.  ' 

t  Cave  Hist.  Lit.  torn.  ii.  p.  125. 
t  Gloss,  torn.  vi.  p.  33. 


132     REPLY  TO  MILNER's  END  OP  CONTROVERSY. 


THE  SEVEN  SACRAMENTS. 


133 


bard,  who  maintained  any  certain  and  definite  number  of 
sacraments."*  The  celebrated  work  of  the  master  of  he 
sentences,  as  Peter  was  called,  was  the  text  book  m  the 
Theolocry  of  succeeding  generations ;  and  there  you  hnd  it 
in  his  fourth  book,  entitled  de  Sacramentis,  in  the  paragraph 
concerning  the  Sacraments  of  the  new  law:  "  Let  us  now 
come,"  he  says,  "  to  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law  ;  which  are, 
baptism,  confirmation,  the  breadof  benediction  or  Eucharist 
penance,  extreme  unction,  order,  marriage,  f  But  ^eter 
Lombard  flourished  in  a.  d.  1141,1:  and  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century  is  too  low  a  peg  on  the  scale  ot  time,  to  Hang 
upon  it  a  divine  and  apostolical  tradition.  u^;ir.r. 

But,  says  Dr.  Milner,  the  Church  of  England  ^differs 
with  all  others,  namely,  the  Catholic,  the  Greek  the  Russian, 
the  Armenian,  the  Nestorian,  the  Eutychian,  the  Coptic,  the 
Ethiopian,  &c.,  all  of  which  firmly  maintain,  and  ever  have 
maintained,  as  well  since  as  before  their  respective  defec- 
tions  from  us,  the  whole  collection  of  the  seven  sacraments.  § 
Here  he  is  at  his  old  doublings  again  ;  but 

"  His  turns  and  doublings  cannot  save  him  long," 

thourrh  they  may  cost  a  keen  hunter  much  patience  and  no  lit- 
tie  weariness  in  tlic  pursuit.     I  can  find  no  evidence  that  the 
Greeks  held  any  notion  of  this  precise  number,  \i\\  after  the 
time  of  Peter  Lombard.  St.  John  Damascenus,of  the  eighth 
century,  wlio  is  called  the  last  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  is  en- 
tirely  silent,  as  fur  as  I  can  see,  about  it ;  and,  I  am  sure 
that  his  editor   Le  Quien,  would   have  been  very    sharp 
sighted  to  discover  such  authority,  if  any  existed      In  14^  J, 
the  necessities  of  the  Greek  Emperor,  induced  him  and  the 
heads  of  the  Greek  Church,  to  make  a  hollow   union  with 
Pope  Eugcnius    IV.,  in  hopes  of  being  aided  against  the 
Turks.     Tlie  chief  points  discussed  in  the  Council  ot  i'lo- 
rence,  were  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  doctrines  of 
purgatory  and  transubstantialion,  the  primacy  ot  the   lope, 

«  Consult  Cassandri,  Artie.  XIII.  Opera,  p.  951.  ,    ,  ,,     •  ^  ,„ 

t  My  copy  is  a  very  ancient  one,  unpaged,  and  printed  at  Venice  by 

Vendelin  de  Spira  in  1477,  small  fol.     It  is  in  fine  condition,  has  the 

arms  of  Pius  VI.  and  belonged  to  his  library. 

X  Cave  Hist.  Lit.  torn.  ii.  p.  220.  k  L^^^^r  XX. 


r. 


and  the  use  of  leavened  or  unleavened  bread  in  the  Eucha- 
rist. The  entire  silence  about  the  number  of  the  Mysteries 
or  Sacraments,  leads  us  to  infer  that  they  had  already  adopted, 
what  had  now  become  a  settled  Latin  doctrine. 

In  the  year  1277,  John  Beccus,  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, held  a  Council  for  the  re-union  of  the  Greeks 
with  the  Latins ;  in  the  acts  of  which  it  is  said,  that  "  since 
the  holy  Apostolic  Church  of  Rome  maintains  that  there  are 
seven  Ecclesiastical  Sacraments,^  (which  they  proceed  to 
enumerate,)  "  therefore,  we  say  concerning  them  as  follows, 
&;c."  The  inference  must  be  that  ly  the  Greeks,  the  number 
seven  had  not  been  maintained  till  then.*  But  this  does  not 
settle  the  date  of  its  adoption ;  for  the  very  attempt  at  re- 
union obliged  Beccus  to  resign  his  see  in  1279 ;  and  after 
the  death  of  the  Emperor  Michael  Palseologus,  who,  from 
motives  of  policy,  had  favoured  the  re-union,  a  Council  was 
assembled  by  the  Patriarch  Gregory  II.,  in  1283,  in  which 
all  the  Bishops  were  condemned  who  had  been  active  in  pro- 
ducing a  re-union  with  the  Latins ;  and  acts  of  penance 
were  enjoined  upon  them  as  for  a  sin.  As  far  therefore  as 
the  Greeks  are  concerned,  the  admission  of  the  Roman  num- 
ber seven  could  not  have  been  earlier  than  the  fourteenth 
century. 

When  the  Armenian  deputies  arrived  at  Florence,  the 
subject  of  the  seven  Sacra?nents  was  fully  defined  by  the  Pope, 
in  his  Decree  of  re-union,  dated  November  22,  1439.  AH 
the  points  in  which  the  Armenians  differed  from  the  Latins 
and  Greeks,  are  there  carefully  enumerated.  They  were 
required  to  receive  the  Latin  addition  of  "  filioque"  to  the 
Nicene  Creed  ;  the  definitions  of  the  Fourth,  and  all  subse- 
quent General  Councils,  acknowledged  by  the  Roman  See ; 
the  seven  Sacraments  as  defined  by  that  See  ;  the  Athanasian 
Creed  ;  the  decree  of  union  just  concluded  with  the  Greeks  ; 
and  lastly,  the  observance  of  certain  festivals,  on  the  days  in 
which  the  Roman  Church  observed  them.f 

In  the  year  1441,  the  Patriarch  of  the  Coptic  Jacobites 
entered  into  union  with  the  Pope,  accepting  the  proceedings 
with  the  Greeks  and  Armenians  at  Florence  ;  and  in  1444, 

*  Harduin.  Concil.,  torn,  vii.vol.  viii.  col.  757. 
t  lb.  torn.  ix.  vol.  x.  col.  433-442.    Labbe  and  Cossart.  torn.  xiii. 
col.  528-540. 


a. 


134  REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


followed  the  accession  of  the  Maronites,  and  some  of  the 
ChaldcBans ;  all,  no  doubt,  on  the  same  terms.  But  this 
union  was  too  insincere  and  too  feeble  to  last  long ;  and  in 
1561  was  published  the  Concordia  Discors  of  Sylvester 
Sgyropulus,  a  Greek,  who  was  present  at  the  Council  of 
Florence,  and  who  therefore  has  given  us  the  Greek  ac- 
count of  that  splendid  but  deceptive  bubbla. 

It  is  certainly  a  curious  fact  in  the  history  of  the  human 
mind,  that  there  should   have   been  so  generally  diffused  a 
fondness  for  the  number  seven.     The  falsely  so  called  Nes- 
torians,  who  claim  St.  Thomas  as  their  Apostle,  separated 
from  the  Communion  of  Antioch,  in  a.  d.  484,  the  same  fatal 
year  in  which  Felix  JI.  of  Rome  excommunicated  Acacius 
of  Constantinople.      Their   history,    after  this,    became  of 
course  to  us  obscure  ;   but  the  candid  Assemani  has  given  us 
some  particulars  with  regard  to  their  reception  of  seven  sac- 
raments,  to  which  I  must  call  my  reader's  attention.     The 
first  author  whom  he  quotes  to  show  that  they  receive  that 
number,  is  Ebed-Jesu,  Metropolitan  of  Soba,  who  flourished 
about  A.  D.  1290.     His  words  are,  as  translated  by  Assemani : 
"  The  Sacraments  of  the  Church  are  seven,  according  to  the 
mind  of  the  divine  Scriptures.     1.  The  Priesthood,  which 
administers  all  sacraments.     2.  Holy  Baptism.     3.  The  Oil 
of  Unction.     4.  The  Oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 
5.  The  Remission  of  Sins.     6.  The  Sacred   Leaven.     7. 
The  Sign  of  the  Life-giving  Cross."     The  list  of  Timothy  II. 
who  became  Catholicos  in  a.  d.  1318  limits  the  number  to 
seven,  but  gives  the   following  particulars:  1.  The  Priest- 
hood.     2.  The   Consecration  of  a  Church  and    Altar.     3. 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Oil.     4.  The  Holy  Sacraments  of  the 
Body  and  Blood.     5.  The  Benediction  of  Monks.     6.  The 
Office  for  the  Defunct.     7.  The   Sacrament   of  Espousals. 
Assemani  names  eleven  earlier  writers,  from   a.  d.   496  to 
A.  D.  987,  all  of  whom,  he  says,  «  acknowledge  seven  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church  ;  but  when  they  enumerate  them  it  is 
wonderful  hoiofar  they  departfrom  the  truth."  (!)     He  gives 
his  readers  no  opportunity  of  judging;  for  not   the  remotest 
allusion  is  made  to  the  seven  sacraments,  in  the  extracts  to 
which  he  refers.     "  The  more  recent  Nestorians,"  he  adds, 
"  when   they  are   asked   about   the   number  of  the  sacra- 


THE    SEVEN    SACRAMENTS. 


135 


ments,  either  diminish  or  increase  it,  or  substitute  some  for 
others."'^ 

It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  the  Russian  Church,  for  it 
belongs  to  the  Greek  Communion  ;  nor  of  the  Eutychians,  for 
this  is  only  another  name  for  Jacobites  ;  nor  of  the  Ethiopian 
Church,  for  that  is  so  connected  with  the  Coptic,  as  always 
to  receive  its  Abuna  or  Presiding  Bishop  from  Egypt.  These 
names  were  added  by  Dr.  Milner  only  to  make  his  phalanx 
appear  the  more  formidable  to  uninformed  readers.  But  is 
it  not  worse  than  trifling  to  assert  as  he  does  that  the  English 
Communion  differs  with  all  others,  about  the  sacraments ; 
and  that  all  these  ancient  Christians  not  only  now  maintain 
but  ever  have  maintained,  the  whole  collection  of  the  seven 
sacraments  ?  Was  there  ever  such  ignorance,  or  such  effron- 
tery, or  BOTH  ! 

It  is  perfectly  well  known  that  the  whole  proceedings  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  respecting  the  Sacraments,  in  1547, 
were  levelled  against  the  Augsburg  Confession.  That  con- 
fession, as  it  was  drawn  up  in  1530  by  Melancthon,  and  en- 
larged by  him  in  1540,  with  a  defence,  was  the  principal 
object  of  their  attack.  Melancthon  defines  "  Sacraments  to 
be  rites  which  have  the  commandment  of  God,  and  to  which 
is  added  the  promise  of  Grace."  "  Rites,"  he  observes, 
"  instituted  by  men  cannot  properly  be  called  Sacraments  ; 
for  it  belongs  not  to  human  authority  to  promise  grace. 
Wherefore  signs  instituted  without  the  command  of  God,  are 
not  signs  of  grace,  even  though  perhaps  they  may  to  some 
degree  be  instruments  of  instruction  or  admonition.  There- 
fore Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  Absolution  which  is  the 
Sacrament  of  Penance,  are  truly  Sacraments  ;  for  these  rites 
have  the  command  of  God,  and  the  promise  of  grace  which 
is  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament. f 

The  Protestants  having  thus  reduced  the  number  of  Sac- 
raments to  three,  the  Council  deemed  it  the  more  necessary 
to  insist  upon  the  number  seven.  It  was  argued  that  there 
were  *'  seven  virtues,  seven  capital  crimes,  seven  defects  pro- 
ceeding from  original  sin,  six  days  of  creation  and  the  sab- 
bath, seven  plagues  of  Egypt,  and  seven  planets  ;  and  there- 

»  Assemani  Bib.  Orient,  torn.  iii.  as  cited  in  torn.  iv.  p.  ccxl. 
t  Mel.  Op.  torn.  i.  fol.  94,  95. 


"'i'li^i^Wli^lP'.'"   V 


136 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


THB    SEVEN    SACRAMENTS. 


137 


fore  that  the  very  dignity  of  the  number  seven^  seemed  to 
authorize  the  number  of  seven  Sacraments.''  Pallavicini  is 
much  offended  that  Fra  Paolo  has  exposed  all  these  puerili- 
ties, but  he  cannot  and  does  not  deny  that  they  were  then 
and  there  uttered.* 

From  all  such  trifling  disputes,  the  Church  of  England, 
in  her  reform,  abstained  with  dignified  moderation.  She 
broke  no  communion  with  any  who  chose  to  count  Sacraments 
upon  their  fingers.  She  contented  herself  with  such  a  defi- 
nition of  the  word  Sacrament  as  to  both  parties  would  be 
satisfactory.  Without  objecting  to  the  ancient  enlarged  sense 
of  the  two  words  Mystery  and  Sacrament,  she  merely  says 
that  she  uses  Sacrament  to  denote  "  an  outward  and  visible 
sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace  to  us  given  y"  which 
outward  and  visible  sign  was  "  ordained  hy  Christ  himself  as  a 
means  whereby  we  receive  "  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace, 
"  and  di  pledge  to  assure  us  "  of  such  grace.  In  this  sense, 
Marriage  must  be  excluded  ;  because  it  is  not  an  outward 
sign,  but  a  state  of  life,  which,  when  entered  into  from 
holy  and  pure  motives,  may  indeed  be  an  instrument  of  con- 
ferring grace,  but  is  not  necessary  to  all  ;  and  because  it 
was  ordained  in  Paradise,  at  the  formation  of  the  first  pair, 
and  therefore  not  instituted  by  Christ  as  a  Sacrament  of  the 
new  law. — Confirmation,  though  it  may  have  been  instituted 
by  our  Lord  himself,  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  an 
Apostolic  rite,  and  all  its  sacramental  character  proceeds  from 
its  inseparable  connection  with  Baptism. — Repentance  after 
Baptism  is  on  our  part  sorrow  for  having  broken  our  sacra- 
ment of  fidelity,  and  a  return  to  that  fidelity  by  forsaking 
sin.  Absolution  is  the  act  of  God  by  which  He  again  re- 
ceives  us  into  favour.  Extreme  Unction  must  be  excluded  ; 
because  we  have  no  evidence  that  it  was  instituted  by 
Christ,  nor,  as  administered  only  in  articulo  mortis,  that  it  is 
in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  St.  .Tames.  According 
to  this  definition,  Holy  Orders  indeed  may  be  admitted  to  be 
a  Sacrament ;  because  it  is  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an 
inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given  unto  us  by  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  ordained  by  Christ  himself;  but  it  conveys  gifts 
and  graces,  which  are  necessary  only  for  the  sacred  ministry. 

*  Comp.  Fra  Paolo  Storia,  lib.  ii.  84  with  Pallavicini,  lib.  ix.  c.  4. 


When  therefore  the  question  is  asked,  "  How  many  Sacra- 
ments hath  Christ  ordained  in  His  Church?"  the  cautious 
answer  is,  not  two  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  but 
"  Two  only  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation. ^^  Confirma- 
tion is  necessary,  not  as  a  separate  Sacrament,  but  in  its  in- 
dissoluble connection  with  Baptism.  Holy  Orders  are  ne- 
cessary ;  but  are  not  generally  necessary  to  salvation.  But 
BAPTISM  and  the  eucharist  are  generally  necessary  to  salva- 
tion ;  because  "  there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven 
given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved,"*  but  only 
the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  cautious  answer 
is,  ^^ generally  not  universally^^  necessary  to  salvation. 
We  presume  not  to  decide  the  fate  of  the  heathen,  nor  to 
adjudge  cases  of  invincible  ignorance,  which  must  be  left  to 
Heaven's  High  Chancery  ;  but  we  proclaim  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel  to  all  who  hear  its  sound,  that  no  man  who  wil- 
fully neglects  these  two  Sacraments  has  any  right  to  rely 
on  the  promises  of  salvation  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Holding  the  Catholic  faith  "  whole  and  undefiled"  as  it  was 
held  by  the  whole  Church  previous  to  the  fatal  year  of  schism, 
A.  D.  484,  and  not  being  subject  to  the  fetters  imposed  by  an  ig- 
norant age,  how  much  more  exalted  is  the  position  of  the  Eng- 
lish Communion  than  that  of  the  Roman  !  This  the  enlight- 
ened members  of  that  Communion  know  in  their  hearts, 
though  their  consciences  are  bound  down  to  slavish  obedience 
by  the  curses  of  Trent.  I  speak  advisedly  when  I  say  this ; 
for  during  my  long  sojourn  in  Italy,  I  had  many  opportunities 
of  conversing  freely  with  good  and  learned  men,  who  knew 
that  I  would  not  betray  them,  and  who,  like  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt,  '^  sighed  by  reason  of  the  bondage."  Their  cry  will 
finally  come  up  unto  God,  and  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  will  hear 
their  groaning. f 

In  secret,  among  themselves,  they  acknowledge  it.  A 
priest  who  had  been  educated  at  Maynooth  frankly  confessed 
this  to  me  and  to  a  friend  of  mine.  The  professor,  whose 
instructions  he  attended,  when  discussing  the  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments,  said  to  his  class,  in  that  serio-comic  manner 
which  is  so  truly  Milesian  :  "  Gentlemen,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed  that  with  regard  to  the  Scriptures  we  have  not  a  leg 


»  Acts  iv.  12. 


t  Exod.  ii.  23, 24. 


138 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


to  Stand  upon ;  and  as  for  the  Fathers,  the  Catholic  Church 
would  have  been  much  bettor  off,  if  St.  Austin,  St.  Chrysos- 
torn  and  St.  Jerome,  instead  of  writing  books,  had  spent  their 
whole  lives  in  breaking  stone  upon  a  macadamized  road."  ! 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ORIGINAL  SIN  AND  JUSTIFICATION. 

Dr.  Milner  notices  the  subject  of  Original  Sin  and  Justifi- 
cation rather  incidentally,  by  broad  assertions  that  the  Church 
of  England  was  Calvinistic  till  the  end  of  the  reign  of  James 
I.;  that  is,  till  the  27th  of  March,  1625,  when  Charles  I. 
ascended  the  throne.* 

He  speaks  much  of  Luther,  with  whom  the  Church  of 
England  had  no  connection,  and  nothing  of  Melancthon,  who 
was  expressly  invited  into  England  by  Henry  VIII.  The 
reason  of  this  will  be  apparent  to  all  who  examine  his  refer- 
ences. He  is  obviously  much  better  acquainted  with  the 
dishonest  Socinian  Archdeacon  Blackburn,  and  with  the 
avowed,  though  unfair  Calvinist,  Overton,  than  with  the  really 
standard  authors  of  the  English  Communion.  He  never 
quotes  Waterland,  the  great  antagonist  of  Arian  subscription, 
nor  Archdeacon  Daubeney,  nor  Archbishop  Laurence,  who 
have,  by  various  ways  and  different  methods,  triumphantly 
vindicated  the  Church  of  England  from  the  charge  of  Cal- 
vinism. The  fact  is  most  indubitable,  that  Calvin,  who  was 
not  born' till  three  months  after  Henry  VIII.  began  to  reign, 
was  not  much  known  in  England  till  after  the  Marian  perse- 
cution ;  and  the  adoption  in  1562  of  all  the  Articles  on  the 
doctrines  of  grace  of  1552,  clearly  shows,  that  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  whatever  might  be  the  private  senti- 
ments of  some  of  the  Bishops  and  Divines,  there  was  no  dis- 
position to  make  the  leading  points  of  Calvinism  the  profession 
of  the  Church  of  England.  Let  any  one  compare  the  XXXIX 
Articles  with  the  Irish  Articles  of  1615,  and  the  proceedings 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines   in   1643,   and  he 

•  See  Note  at  the  end  of  Letter  XV.  and  Letter  XIX. 


ORIGINAL   SIN   AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


139 


will  see  at  once  how  dissatisfied  the  Calvinists  had  ever  been 
with  them,  and  how  they  finally  threw  them  aside  as  utterly 
unmanageable. 

As  for  the  deputation  sent  to  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  1618, 
which  Dr.  Milner  cites  as  a  proof  of  the  Church's  Calvinism, 
it  was  no  act  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  deputies  were 
sent  by  King  James  I.,  who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic school ;  but  they  maintained  boldly  and  unflinchingly 
the  doctrine  of  universal  redemption  as  that  of  the  Church 
of  England :  a  doctrine  which,  in  its  consequences,  utterly 
overthrows  Calvinism.* 

As  for  Arminianism,  for  which  Dr.  Milner  flippantly  quotes 
an  ignorant  sneer  of  the  great  Lord  Chatham,  it  was  not 
broached  when  the  Articles  were  framed .  Great  men  cannot 
be  great  in  all  things ;  and  when  Lord  Chatham  talked  of 
"  a  Calvinist  Creed  and  an  Arminian  Clergy"  he  talked 
nonsense,  and  showed  only  that  he  knew  more  of  poli- 
tics than  of  divinity.  The  XVIIth  Article,  in  its  defini- 
tion of  predestination  to  life,  did  not  even  touch  the  dispute 
of  the  Calvinists  and  Arminians.  But  not  to  anticipate,  I 
shall  only  here  observe,  that  the  origin  of  the  English  Articles 
has  lately  had  a  clear  light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  publica- 
tion of  Dr  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  which  utterly  exposes  the  ig- 
norance and  futility  of  all  Dr.  Milner's  assertions. 

The  fourth  article  of  Pope  Pius's  Creed  refers  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  Original  Sin  and 
Justification  ;  and  the  eleventh  Article  of  the  London  Synod 
of  1552,  which  diflfers  not  in  substance  from  the  eleventh  Ar- 
ticle of  1562,  refers  to  "the  Homily  of  Justification."  The 
Article  as  it  was  originally  framed,  and  the  Homily  to  which 
it  refers  for  explanation,  were  both  written  by  Archbishop 
Cranmer.  I  therefore  proceed  to  show,  first  the  doctrine  of 
the  Tridentine  Synod,  with  its  origin  and  motives,  and  then 
the  doctrine  of  the  English  Reformation  under  Cranmer. 

In  my  account  of  Trent,  I  shall  follow  Pallavicini,  who 
does  not  differ  in  substance  from  Fra  Paolo,  though  by  sup- 
pression he  attempts  to  appear  different.  Pallavicini  states, 
that  the  discussion  on  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  turned 

*  Collier,  E.  H.  vol.  ii.  p.  718. 

t  See  Note  to  paragraph  5,  in  Letter  XIX. 


140 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


upon  five  points  :  1,  its  nature ;  2,  the  mode  of  its  propaga- 
tion ;  3,  the  injurious  effects  produced  by  it ;  4,  the  remedy  ; 
and  5,  the  efficacy  of  that  remedy.  On  the  first  of  these 
points  it  was  maintained,  that  as  blindness  is  the  privation  of 
vision,  so  Original  Sin  consisted  in  the  privation  of  Original 
Righteousness,  or  the  righteousness  in  which  Adam  was  crea- 
ted, or  constituted.  This,  it  was  said,  was  conceded  in  the 
conference  at  Worms  in  1540.  And  in  fact,  if  we  examine 
Melancthon's  words,  we  find  him  defining  *'  this  corruption  of 
human  nature"  as  being  "  the  defect  of  Justice,'^  another 
word  for  Righteousness,  which  he  also  calls  Integrity  or 
Original  Obedience.''  He  adds,that  this  corruption  "embraces 
or  comprehends  concupiscence,  (concupiscenliam  complecli- 
tur,)  and  is  the  defect,  the  horrible  blindness  and  disobedience, 
which  wants  the  rectitude,  the  true,  pure  and  supreme  love 
of  God  and  other  similar  gifts  of  man's  upright  nature."* 
On  this  first  point  therefore  the  Protestants  and  the  Council 
of  Trent  were  not  at  variance.  • 

Nor  was  there  any  great  difference  on  the  second  point. 
Adam  was  compared  to  a  feudal  lord,  holding  lands  from  his 
sovereign  on  the  tenure  of  service.  If  he  fails  in  that  duty, 
he  forfeits  his  possessions,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his 
posterity.  It  was  expressly  stated  in  the  Council,  that 
Zuinglius,  and  not  the  Protestants  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, was  here  in  error ;  and  even  this  exception,  according  to 
Fra  Paolo,  arose  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  Swiss  Re- 
former's meaning. f 

On  the  third  point,  there  being  great  diversities  of  opinion, 
among  the  schoolmen  and  in  the  Council  itself,  a  very  guarded 
and  cautious  judgment  was  pronounced,  which  in  substance 
did  not  differ  from  that  of  the  German  reformers ;  that  Adam, 
beside  the  gifts  received  from  nature,  possessed,  by  the  mere 
favour  of  God,  rectitude  or  uprightness,  and  justice  or  right- 
eousness ;  that  preserving  these,  he  would  have  enjoyed  im- 
mortality for  himself  and  his  offspring,  and  would  have  trans- 
fused to  them  the  same  gifts  ;  but  that  having  sinned,  and  by 
that  sin,  which  was  disobedience,  having  ruined  himself  and 
his  posterity,  he  had,  both  for  himself  and  them,  lost  grace, 

*  Opera,  torn.  i.  fol.  39. 

t  Fra  Paolo  Sarpi  St.  lib.  ii.  64,  ad  an.  1546. 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND    JUSTIFICATION. 


141 


which  could  be  restored  only  through  the  merits  and  media- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ. 

On  the  fourth  point,the  remedy  for  Original  Sin,  the  Council 
was  unanimous  that  it  was  Baptism ;  by  which  the  merits  and 
death  of  Christ  are  applied  to  infants,  remitting  the  guilt  of 
Original  Sin,  restoring  the  recipient  to  a  state  of  reconciliation 
and  grace,  and  removing  all  impediments  to  salvation.  Thus 
far  there  was  no  essential  difference  with  the  Protestants  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  for  in  the  Articles  of  Faith  declared 
at  Worms  in  1540,  Baptism  is  expressly  said  to  be  "necessa- 
ry to  salvation  ;"  and  the  baptism  of  infants,  the  act  by  which 
"  they  are  received  into  the  grace  of  God,  and  become  the 
sons  of  God."* 

In  the  same  passage  (Art.  IX.)  the  Protestants  condemn  the 
Anabaptists,  because  "  they  reject  infant  baptism,  and  affirm 
that  infants  are  saved  without  baptism,  and  out  of  the  Church 

of  Christ. "t 

What  then  were  the  points  in  debate  between  the  Protest- 
ants and  Rome,  on  the  subject  of  Original  Sin  and  its  remedy? 
I  answer  that  they  were  two  :  the  eflicacy  of  Faith,  and  the 
nature  of  Concupiscence.  If  any  one  will  carefully  examine 
the  two  ast  canons  of  the  fifth  session  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  held  June  17th,  1546,  he  will  see  that  all  mention  of 
Faith  is  studiously  avoided,  and  that  Concupiscence  after 
Baptism,  the  existence  of  which  they  could  not  deny,  is 
declared  to  be  ^^  in  the  regenerate  not  truly  and  properly  sin, 
hut  only  proceeding  from  sin,  and  inclining  to  sin. ^^ 

As  to  faith,  in  connection  with  the  use  of  the  Sacraments, 
the  Protestants  taught  as  follows:  "The  Sacraments  are 
not  only  marks  of  profession  among  men,  but  much  more ; 
being  signs  and  testimonies  of  the  will  of  God  towards  us, 
set  forth  to  excite  and  confirm  Faith  in  those  who  use  them. 
Wherefore  the  Sacraments  must  be  so  used  that  the  Faith, 
which  believes  in  the  promises  exhibited  and  shown  by  the 
Sacraments,  may  be  increased.  By  this  faith,  we  receive 
the  promised  grace,  (which  the  Sacraments  signify,)  and  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

"  They  condemn   therefore  the  Pharisaic  opinion  which 

*  Melancth.  Opera,  torn.  i.  fol.  40. 

t  Damnant   Anabaptistas  qui  improbant  baptismum  infantum,  et 

affirmant  infantes  sine  baptismo  et  extra  Ecclesiam  Christi  salvos  fieri. 

•7* 


SSKSSSE 


142 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's  END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


buries  the  doctrine  concerning  faith,  and  does  not  teach  that 
Faith  is  required  in  the  use  of  the  Sacr^meni*,  namely,  the 
Faith  which  believes  that  grace  is  given  to  us  for  Christ's 
sake  ;  but  feigns  that  men  are  just,  on  account  of  the  use  of 
the  Sacraments  ex  opere  operato,  and  indeed  without  any  good 
motive  of  those  who  use  them."* 

The  Council  of  Trent  did  thus  bury  the  doctrine  of  Faith, 
because  they  could  not  agree  upon  it.  Pallavicini  states,  that 
Jerome  of  Bologna,  Bishop  of  Syracuse,  urged  the  necessity 
of  Faith,  and  was  so  strongly  supported  by  Seripando,  Gene- 
ral of  the  Order  of  St.  Augustine,  that  the  latter  incurred 
the  suspicions  of  the  Council,  and  was  obliged  to  exculpate 
himself,  as  if  by  insisting  on  the  efficacy  of  faith  he  highly 
valued^that  of  baptism.  "  Neveriheless,"  says  the  historian, 
"the  majority  were  opposed  to  naming  'Faith'  in  the  decree, 
because  it  is  not  universally  required  for  the  destruction  of 
Original  Sin,  as  are  the  other  causes  mentioned.  This  is 
apparent  in  the  baptism  of  infants. "f 

Most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion  !  For  the  Protestants 
guarded  their  doctrine,  by  speaking  of  that  Faith  only  which 
believes  the  •promises  made  in  the  Sacraments.  A  man 
must  believe  the  promises  made  in  baptism,  before  he  can  be 
persuaded  to  ask  for  it.  The  parents,  or  sponsors  of  a  child, 
must  believe  that  promises  are  conveyed  to  the  child  in  baptism, 
or  they  will  not  be  anxious  to  present  their  child.  Failii  in 
the  promises  must  ahoays,  therefore,  go  before  baptism  ;  and, 
in  the  case  of  infants,  it  is  the  Faith  of  those  who  bring  them  ; 
just  as  Jesus  healed  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy,  when  he 
saw — not  his  Faith,  but — the  Faith  of  the  friends,  who  laid  the 
helpless  sufferer  at  his  feet. 

On  the  subject  of  Concupiscence,  there  were  great  debates, 
because  the  different  Schools  of  Roman  Theology  were  much 
at  variance.  It  required  no  little  skill,  to  frame  a  canon 
which  might  be  so  worded  as  not  to  impinge  on  these  several 
varieties.  For  all  this,  I  must  refer  my  reader  to  the  two 
rival  historians  of  the  Council.  But  there  is  one  remarkable 
fact  mentioned  by  Pallavicini,  which  I  have  never  seen  noted 
by  writers  on  this  controversy.     It  occurs  in  the  proceedings 

•  Mel.  Op.  ut  sup.  torn.  i.  fol.  41,  art.  xiii.  1540. 
+  Pallav.  St.  lib.  vii.  c.  8,  torn.  i.  p.  636. 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


143 


of  the  eighth  of  June,  1546,  and   in  the  answer  of  Bertani 
to  the  arguments  of  Seripando  and  Cardinal  Pole.*     "  The 
framers  of  the  decree,"  he  observed,    "  had  advisedly  used 
the  term  *  regenerate'  instead  of  *  baptized ;'  as  it  might  hap- 
pen  that  some   one  might  be  baptized,   and  notwithstanding 
remain  in  the  wrath   of  God,   because  he   had  not  received 
baptism  with  the  necessary  disposition.     But  this  could  not  be, 
if  he  were  regenerate  ;  for  every  one  who,  in  the  baptismal 
font,  was  buried  with  Christ,  was  truly  regenerate,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  decree."     The   passage  is  in  the  last  canon, 
beginning  with  "  manere  autem,"  and  ending  with  the  usual 
"  anathema."     Thus,  to  avoid  the   argument  pressed  upon 
them  by  Seripando  and  Cardinal  Pole,  who  agreed  with  the 
Protestants  that  Concupiscence  hath  the  nature  of  sin,  they 
were  the  first  who  denied  the  necessary  connection  of  Regene- 
ration loith  Baptism,  and  maintained,  in  the  language  of  Ber- 
tani, that   "  although  Concupiscence  remains  excluded  from 
Heaven,  it  cannot  be  hateful  to  God  in  his  servants  on  earth  ;" 
or  in  other  words,  that  God  sees  no  sin  in  his  elect !     The 
Protestants,   following  in  this  case  the  ancient  Catholic   doc- 
tors, always  used   the  terms  Regeneration   and  Baptism  as 
inseparably  connected ;  but  the  Council  of  Trent   was   the 
first  to  violate  this  necessary  connection,  for  no  other  purpose 
than  to  uphold  their  scholastic  doctrine  concerning  Concupi- 
scence after  baptism ! 

Sec.  2.   The  Justification  of  Adults. 

The  subject  of  Original  Sin,  and  the  Justification  of  Infants, 
as  being  baptized  before  the  commission  of  actual  sin,  being 
thus  disposed  of,  the  Council  proceeded  to  examine  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Protestants  concerning  Grace,  the  remedy  for  sm, 
in  the  case  of  baptism  received  by  adults,  and  consequently 
after  actual  sin.  It  is  of  great  importance  to  mark  this  dis- 
tinction, as  it  throws  great  light  upon  the  whole  controversy. 
Cardinal  Pole  was  for  moderate  measures,  and  exhorted  the 
Fathers  not  to  read  the  books  of  their  adversaries,  as  if  all 
that  they  said  was  false.  Cardinal  Pacheco  also  entreated 
them  to  consider,  that  they  had  no  aid  from  ancient  scholas- 

*  Pal.  St.  lib.  vii.  cap.  9,  torn.  i.  p.  639. 


144  REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


tics,  or  from  ancient  Councils  ;  and  that  the  Tridentine  Synod 
was  the  Jirst  who  were  now  called  upon  to  define  the  doctrine 
of  Justification,  He  lamented  that  they  were  so  few  in  num- 
ber, and  that  number  diminishing  daily.*  Cardinal  Pole,  who 
was  one  of  the  presiding  legates,  was  taken  ill,  and  left  the 
Council ;  f  and  Cardinal  Pacheco,  being  an  Imperialist,  was 
not  in  favour  with  the  Papal  party.  These  circumstances, 
and  the  war  now  began  with  the  Protestant  princes,  all  con- 
spired to  create  many  delays,  and  to  prevent  that  calm  and 
dispassionate  examination  by  a  numerous  body  of  Bishops  and 
Theologians,  which  the  importance  of  the  subject  demanded. 
The  discussion  was  arranged  by  the  two  remaining  le- 
gates, the  Cardinals  Del  Monte  and  Cervini,  under  three  heads  : 
1.  The  state  of  the  unbelieving  adult  who  is  first  converted 
and  then  justified  ;  2.  That  of  one  who  being  justified,  con- 
tinues in  grace  ;  3.  That  of  one  who  falls  irom  grace,  and 
recovers  it.  With  these,  at  the  request  of  Pelargo,  the  ques- 
tion of  free  will  was  to  be  considered,  as  being  necessarily 
connected  with  the  Justification  of  Adults. 


I.    THE  UNBELIEVING  ADULT  FIRST  CONVERTED  AND  THEN 

JUSTIFIED. 

It  must  here  be  observed,  that  the  dispute  between  the 
Council  and  the  Protestants,  turned  only  upon  what  ivas  to  be 
done  by  man.  In  the  discussion,  therefore,  under  the  first 
head,  both  parties  were  agreed  as  to  the  necessity  of  Baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  In  the  first  Article  of  the  Confes- 
sion  of  1540,  the  Protestants  confess  the  Nicene  Creed,  which 
expressly  declares  the  truth  of  "  one  baptism  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  "  In  the  ninth  Article  they  teach  that  Baptism 
is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  "  by  or  through  baptism 
THE  GRACE  OF  GoD  IS  OFFERED,"  freely  offered  on  the  part  of 
God,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  received  b}^ 
man,  through  faith,  and  not  on  account  of  his  own  works  or 
deservings.  "  When  therefore,"  says  Melancthon,  in  the  name 
of  the  Protestants,  "  we  say  that  we  arc  justified  by  faith, 
we  do  not  understand  this  as  if  we  become  just  on  account  of 
the  dignity  of  that  virtue.     But  this  is  our  judgment ;  that 

*  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  c.  2. 

t  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  c.  7,  torn.  i.  p.  632. 


ORIGINAL   SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


145 


we  obtain  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness, through  mercy  for  Christ's  sake.  But  this  mercy  can- 
not be  received  unless  by  Faith.  And  Faith  here  does  not 
signify  merely  the  knowledge  of  history,  but  it  signifies,  to 
believe  the  promise  of  mercy  which  is  applied  to  us  for  the 
sake  of  the  mediator  Christ.  *  Now  the  promise  of  mercy  is 
thus  applied,  as  the  Protestants  admitted,  in  Baptism. 

According  to  Fra  Paolo's  account,  there  were  huiforty-five 
theologians  assembled  at  Trent,  when  the  subject  of  Justifi- 
cation was  first  discussed  ;f  and  the  small  number  of  Fa- 
thers present  appears  from  the  number  of  votes  at  ihe  close  of 
July,  1546,  respecting  the  prorogation  of  the  Council.  These 
were,  according  to  Pallavicini,  27  to  29,  or  fifty-six  in  all. — 
Even  on  the  13ih  of  January,  1547,  when  the  final  vote  con- 
cerning the  decree  of  Justification  was  taken,  the  whole  num- 
ber was  but  sixty-eight,  viz.,  two  Legates,  two  other  Cardinals, 
ten  Archbishops,  fbrty-five  Bishops,  one  Jesuit,  one  Domi- 
nican, two  Abbots,  and  five  Generals  of  Religious  Orders.  X 

Even  the  most  favourable  account  represents  them  as  great- 
ly divided  in  sentiment,  very  pertinacious  in  adhering  to  the 
opinions  of  their  several  schools,  and  indulging  in  acts  of 
violence  and  fury  totally  unbecoming  the  character  of  Chris- 
tian Bishops  and  Divines.  That  many  of  them  agreed  with  the 
Protestants,  as  to  Justification  by  Faith  only  before  Baptism,  is 
certain.  "  All  agreed,"  says  Pallavicini,  "  that  Justification 
is  a  passage  from  a  state  of  enmity  to  a  state  of  friendship 
and  adoption  as  sons  of  God  ;  but  four,  whom  he  names,  ad- 
hered to  the  opinion  attributed  to  Peter  Lombard,  but  aban- 
doned by  the  schools.  Now  the  opinion  of  Peter  Lombard 
was,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  essentially  love  ;  and  that  when 
He  is  sent,  or  given  to  us,  He  produces  the  love  of  God  and 
our  neighbour  in  our  hearts.§  This  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Protestants ;  but  it   was  not  considered  by  the   Legates  as 

*  Credere  promissioni  misericordiae  quaj  nobis  propter  Mediatorem 
Christum  conlingit.     Art.  tidei  1540.     Melancth.  Op.  torn.  i.  fol.  43. 

t  Fra  Paolo  St.  lib.  ii.  75. 

X  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  7,  comp.  withe.  18,  num.  10,  and  Fleury 
Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  cxliii.  78. 

§  Sentent.  Lib.  Magis.  Pet.  Lombard,  lib.  i.  cap.  De  Missione  Spir- 

itus  Sancti. 


146 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Catholic,  and  therefore  they  denounced  these  four  theolo- 
gians, in  the  letters  they  sent  to  Rome.* 

These  four  were  joined  by  a  fifth,  in  maintaining  "  that 
man  is  justified  hy  faith,  in  as  much  as  he  believes  most  firmly 
that  he  receives  pardon  through  the  merits  of  Christ  J^ 

As  to  works  done  hefore  Justification  "  the  greater  part  of 
the  Theologians  said,  that  they  were  meritorious  of  Justifica- 
tion, in  that  degree  of  merits  which  was  called  congruous. — 
But,  with  respect  to  works  done  after  Justification,  and  there- 
fore taking  their  form  from  grace,  and  their  value  from  the 
merits  of  Christ,  of  whom  the  operator  is  a  living  member,  all 
allowed  the  degree  of  condign  merit,  to  preserve  and  augment 
the  grace  itself,  and  attain  to  eternal  life.  But  the  four,  al- 
ready mentioned,  seemed  greatly  to  extenuate  the  powers  of  me- 
rit, and  even  in  this,  to  take  side  with  the  opinion  of  the  Inno- 
vators," i.  e.  the  Protestants.f 

Ten  points  of  reputed  error  were  discussed  on  the  state  of 
the  adult  before  baptism.  Fra  Paolo  enumerates  twelve, 
and  attributes  them  to  the  Lutherans  alone  ;  but  Pallavicini 
says  they  were  extracted  from  the  writings  *'  not  only  of  the 
Lutherans,  but  of  the  Pelagians,  Zuinglians,  and  other  here- 
tics." In  this  assertion,  so  far  as  the  Lutherans  were  con- 
cerned, he  is  the  most  correct ;  for  no  one  acquainted  with  the 
writings  either  of  Luther  or  Melancthon,  can  read  the  first 
twelve  of  the  twenty-five  propositions  stated  by  Fra  Paolo, 
without  perceiving  that  they  are  not   responsible  for  them.* 

Beside  the  conferences  of  the  inferior  Theologians,  there 
were  no  less  than  eight  general  congregations,  to  hear  the 
votes  of  all  the  Fathers.  "  At  the  first  of  these,  held  on  the 
fifth  of  July,  Cardinal  Pacheco  and  nine  Archbishops  gave 
their  judgments  in  writing.  The  Archbishop  of  Siena  was 
the  only  one  who  attributed  all  to  Christ  and  nothing  to  us ; 
all  Justification  to  Faith,  and  none  to  other  dispositions."  On 
the  sixth  of  July,  the  Bishop  of  Cava,  in  a  long  discourse, 
arrogated  all  to  Faith ;  being  of  opinion  that  Faith  being  es- 
tablished. Justification  would  immediately  follow,  of  which 
hope  and  charity,  though  they  would  be  inseparable  compan- 
ions, would  not  be  causes,  and  as  it  were  forerunners." 

*  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  c.  4,  num.  2.  t  lb.  lib.  viii.  c.  iv.  num.  3,  4. 

t  Comp.  Sarpi  St.  lib.  i.  sec.  Ixxv.  with  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  c.  iv.  num.  5. 


ORIGINAL   SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


147 


In  the  next  congregation,  Bertano  maintained,  that  man  is 
justified  per  lafede  and  not  dallafede ;  because  our  righteous- 
ness is  not  Faith,  but  by  Faith  we  obtain    it."     Contarino, 
Bishop  of  Belluno,  "  ascribed  all  to  Faith  and  to  the  merits  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  nothing  to  works ;  maintaining  that  they 
were  signs  of  faith  and  justice,  but  had  no  part  in  acquiring 
or  preserving  it.     Bernardo  Diaz,  Bishop  of  Calaorra,  was 
of  an  entirely  different  opinion  :  that  the  unbeliever  does  not 
dispose  himself,  bv  any  work  of  his,  to  merit  calling,   which 
is  the  free  gift  of  God ;  that  being  called,  he  is  still  at  liber- 
ty to  obey  or  resist  the  calling ;  but  if  he  wills  to  obey,  he 
believes,  hopes,  turns  to  God,  whom  he  knows  to  be  propitious 
to  such  as  recur  to  Him,  detests  sin,  proposes  to  observe  the 
divine  law,  receives  baptism,  and  in  that  attains  to  justifying 
grace,  infused  into  him,  by  God.     The  Bishop  of  the  Cana- 
ries contended  for  the  opposite  extreme  to  that  of  the  Bishop 
of  Cava  and  Belluno.     He  affirmed  that  works  done  in  the 
state  of  nature,  and  with  the  general  aid  only  of  God,  were 
not  merits  either  of  condignity  or  congruity^  to  obtain  grace, 
but  that  God  of  his  goodness  was  moved  by  them  to  grant  it. 
Seripando  distinguished  two  Justifications  ;  one  by  which  the 
impious  man  becomes  pious,  with  v/hich  works  do  not  con- 
cur, because  nothing  is  required  on  the  part  of  man   before 
Justification  or  any  other  special  favour  preparatory  to  it,  and 
hence  the  Apostle  speaks  of  being  justified  freely  :  for  this 
Justification,  repentance  for  sins  past  was  required  ;  but  Jus- 
tification was  not  granted   for  the  merit  of  repentance,  as  <o 
say  that,  would  be  Pelagianism.     Another  meaning  of  Justifi- 
cation, was,  to  walk  justly  in   the  way  of  the  divine  com- 
mandments ;  and  for  this  power  is  given  us,   with  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  afterwards  the  fulfilment  in  the  works 
commanded.     In  this  sense  works  were  necessary  for  Justice 
or  Righteousness.* 

1  have  given  these  extracts  from  Pallavicini,  to  show  the 
reader  the°actual  state  of  the  discussion.  The  quarrel  of 
Sanfelice,  Bishop  of  Cava,  with  Zannettino,  Bishop  of  Chiro- 
nia,  is  a  specimen  of  the  spirit  with  which  it  was  conducted. 
The  former  overheard  the  latter  speaking  of  him  in,  terms  of 
disparagement,    as  either   ignorant   or   obstinate  in   error. 

•  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  c.  iv.  num.  6,  7,  10, 12,  15, 16, 17, 19. 


148 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Upon  which  he  rushed  on  him  and  plucked  out  a  lock  of  his 
beard.  His  opinion,  which  I  have  stated,  being  unpalatable 
to  the  Court  of  Rome,  they  availed  themselves  of  his  indis- 
cretion, and  banished  him  from  the  Council.  Indefensible 
as  his  conduct  was,  he  was  not  the  only  passionate  disputant,  as 
the  Bishop  of  Calaorra  admitted  when  he  said  that,  "  if  minor 
offences  of  the  same  kind  (le  protervie  minori)  had  been  pun- 
ished, the  Council  would  not  have  been  so  dishonoured."* 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  several  important  concessions 
were  made  by  the  Council.  The  question  started  by  Luther 
was  new.  The  ancient  Church  was  silent  on  the  subject. 
After  the  introduction  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  baptism 
of  infants  had  been  so  general,  that  cases  of  conversion  of 
Jews  or  Gentiles  were  those  only  in  which  adult  baptism 
was  administered.  The  predisposing  conduct  of  such  con- 
verts had  not  been  fully  considered,  and  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject had  become  very  diverse.  During  the  four  hundred 
years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  time  of  Peter  Lombard, 
the  schools  had  so  far  departed  from  him,  as  to  admit  that  the 
natural  man  could  turn  and  prepare  himself  to  deserve  grace 
by  what  they  called  the  merit  of  Congruity. 

In  the  language  of  the  middle  ages,  **  Congruum,"  as  Du- 
cange  showsj-j-  was  synonymous  with  "  Cambium,"  and  meant 
exchange;  or  perhaps,  as  the  word  imports,  a  proper  or 
equitable  exchange,  an  equivalent.  Of  this  he  gives  an 
instance  in  a  "  Cambium"  or  deed  of  exchange  of  certain 
pieces  of  land,  between  two  monasteries  in  a.  d.  1086 ;  in 
which  the  property,  so  transferred,  is  called  a  "Congruum." 
The  instrument  will  be  found  at  full  length  in  Muratori.f 
When  there'fore,  between  the  twelfth  and  sixteenth  centuries, 
the  schoolmen  spake  of  Merits  of  Congruity,  they  meant  that 
man,  by  his  own  natural  strength,  can  prepare  himself  to  receive 
the  divine  infusion  of  grace  by  certain  good  deeds,  which  he 
offers,  and  God  is  pleased  to  accept  in  exchange  for  it.  Now 
this  doctrine  of  meriting  grace  de  Congruo,  in  the  view  of 
the  Lutherans,  struck  at  the  very  root  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. § 

»  Palljrtr.  lib.  viii.  c.  vi. 
.     t  Gloss,  vv.  Cambium  and  Congruum,  torn.  ii.  col.  67  and  col.  965. 
X  Scriptores  Rer.  Italic,  torn.  ii.  p.  ii.  col.  1003. 
§  See  Abp.  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  Notes  on  Sermon  IV. 


'  ( 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND    JUSTIFICATION. 


149 


Having  arrived  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion,  towards 
the  close  of  July,  1546,  the  attention  of  the  Council  was 
entirely  turned,  by  the  alarming  approach  of  the  Protestant 
army,  to  the  questions  on  its  prorogation  and  translation ; 
questions  concerning  which  the  Papal  and  Imperial  par'ies 
were  widely  and  warmly  at  variance.  As  Henry  VIII.  died 
in  the  following  January,  it  is  now  proper  that  we  should 
turn  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Church  of  England. 

In  the  spring  of  1538,  a  mission  was  sent  from  the  Pro. 
testant  Princes  to  the  King  of  England,  for  the  double  pur- 
pose of  forming  a  political  alliance  and  a  joint  confession  of 
faith.  The  Articles  agreed  upon  at  that  time  between  My- 
conius  and  Cranmer,  with  other  bishops  and  divines,  form  the 
connectinsj-link  between  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  and  the 
English  Articles  of  1552 ;  but  strange  to  say,  they  have 
been  published  for  the  first  time  by  Dr.  Jenkyns  in  1833. 
Being  for  the  use  of  foreigners,  they  were  drawn ^  up  in 
Latin,  and  therefore,  when  compared  with  the  Articles  of 
1552  and  1562,  the  Latin  edition  of  those  Articles  should  be 
used.  Nevertheless  I  shall  here  subjoin  an  English  trans- 
lation  of  such  parts  of  them  as  appertain  to  our  present  sub- 
ject ;  being  governed  in  it  by  the  language  of  the  English 
A  rticles. 


2.  Of  Original 


c>in. 


"  All  men,  propagated  according  to  nature,  are  born  with 
original  sin  ;  that  is,  with  the  privation  (carentia)  of  that  ori- 
gind  righteousness  (justjtise)  which  ought  to  be  in  them, 
whence  they  are  children  of  wrath,  and  fail  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  the  fear  of  God,  confidence  towards  God,  &c., 
and  have  concupiscence  which  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  God. 
And  this  disease  or  fault  of  origin  is  truly  sin,  condemning  and 
now  also  bringing  eternal  death  to  those  who  are  not  born  again 
by  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  We  condemn  the  Pelagians, 
and  others  who  deny  that  this  fault  of  origin  is  sin,  and  who, 
that  they  may  lessen  the  glory  of  the  merit  and  benefits 
of  Christ,  argue  that  man,  by  his  natural  powers  without  the 
Holy  Ghost,  can  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  and  on  account  of 
becoming  works  of  reason  (propter  honesta  opera  rationis)  can 

be  pronounced  just  before  God." 


150 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSy. 


I  •\ 


4,  Of  Justification, 

"  Likewise,  concerning  Justification,  we  teach  that  it  pro- 
perly signifies  the  remission  of*  sins,  and  our  acceptation  or 
reconcilation  into  the  grace  and  favour  of  God,  that  is,  into  the 
true  renovation   in  Christ ;  and  that  sinners,  although  they 
do  not  obtain  this  Justification  without  repentance  and  a  good 
and  inclining  motion  of  the  heart,   which  the   Holy  Ghost 
effocts  towards  God  and  their  neighbour,  are  not,  however, 
justified  on  account  of  the  dignity  or  merit  of  repentance  ; 
or  of  any  works  or  merits  of  their  own,  but  freely  for  Christ's 
sake,  through  faith,  when  they  believe  that  they  are  received 
into  grace,  and  that  their  sins  are  remitted  for  Christ's  sake, 
who  by  his  death  hath  made  satisfaction  for  our  sins.     This 
faith  God  imputes  for  righteousness   (pro  justitia)    before 
Him.*  But  we  understand  faith,  not  to  be  empty  or  idle,  but 
that  *  which  worketh  by  love.'    For  it  is  the  true  and  Chris- 
tion  faith  of  which  we  here  speak,  not  merely  the  knowledge 
of  the  articles  of  faith,  or  a  belief  at  least  historic  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  but  together  with  that  knowledge  and  belief,  a 
firm  assurance  (fiducia)  of  God's  mercy  promised  for  Christ's 
sake,  by  which  truly  we  are  certainly  persuaded  and  firmly 
believe  that  He  is  merciful  and  gracious  towards  us.      And 
this  faith  truly  justifies,   is  truly   salutiferous,  not  feigned, 
dead  or  hypocritical,  but  necessarily  has  faith  and  charity 
inseparably  connected  with  it,  and  also  the  desire  of  living 
well,  and  it  worketh  well  according  to  place  and  opportunity. 
For  good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation,  not  because  from 
an  impious  man  they  make  one  just,  nor  because  they  are 
a  price  for  sins,  or  a  cause  of  Justification,  but  because  it  Is 
necessary  that  he  who   is  already  justified   by   faith,  and 
reconciled  to  God  through  Christ,  should  desire  to  do  the  will 
of  God  according  to  that :  *  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me, 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  but  he  that 
doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  HeaVen.'  But  who- 
soever does  not  desire  to  do  these  works,  but  lives  according 
to  the  flesh,  neither  has  true  faith  nor  is  just,  nor  (unless  he  is 
heartily  sorry  and  truly  repents,)  will  he  attain   to  eternal 
life. 

*  Rom.  iri.  and  iv. 


l!f^ 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


151 


"  That  we  may  obtain  this  faith,  the  ministry  of  teaching 
the  Gospel  and  offering  the  Sacraments,  hath  been  instituted. 
For  through  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  as  through  instru- 
ments, the  Holy  Ghost  is  given,  who  eflfects  faith  where  and 
when  it  seems  good  to  God,  in  those  who  hear  the  Gospel, 
namely  that  God,  not  on  account  of  our  merits,  but  on  ac- 
count of  Christ,  justifies  the  penitent,  who  believe  that  they 
are  received  into  grace  on  Christ's  account.  We  condemn 
the  Anabaptists,  and  others,  who  think  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
com6s  to  men  without  the  external  word,  through  their  own 
preparations  and  works.' 


5> 


6.  Of  Baptism. 

"  Of  Baptism,  we  say,  that  Baptism  is  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  through  Bap*- 
tism,  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  grace  of  Christ  are  of- 
fered to  infants  and  adults.  And  that  Baptism  ought  not  to 
be  repeated,  and  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized.  And  that 
infants  through  Baptism  obtain  remission  of  sins,  and  grace, 
and  are  children  of  God,  because  the  promise  of  grace  and 
eternal  life  belongs  not  only  to  adults,  but  also  to  infants. 
And  this  promise,  through  the  ministry  in  the  Church,  ought 
to  be  administered  to  infants  and  adults.  Because,  of  a  truth 
infants  are  born  with  original  sin,  they  have  need  of  the 
remission  of  that  sin,  and  that  sin  is  so  remitted  that  the  guilt 
(reatus)  is  taken  away,  although  the  corruption  of  nature  or 
concupiscence  remains  in  this  life,  though  it  begins  to  be 
healed  ;  because  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  in  infants  themselves, 
is  efficacious,  and  cleanses  them.  We  approve,  therefore, 
the  sentence  of  the  Church,  which  hath  condemned  the  Pela- 
gians, because  they  denied  that  infants  have  original  sin. 
We  condemn  the  Anabaptists  also,  who  deny  that  infants 
must  be  baptized.  Concerning  adults,  indeed,  we  teach  that 
they  so  obtain,  through  Baptism,  the  remission  of  sins  and 
grace,  if,  when  about  to  be  baptized,  they  bring  true  repent- 
ance,* the  confession  of  the  articles  of  faith,  and  believe  truly 
that  to  themselves  is  there  granted  the  remission  of  sins  and 
justification  for  Christ's  sake,  as  Peter  saith  in  the  Acts  : 
*  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 


152 


REPLY    TO    MILNER*S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  "  * 

The  comparison  of  these  Articles  with  the  corresponding 
parts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with   the  Homily  of  Sal- 
vation, written  by  Cranmer,  and  with  the  ninth,  tenth,  elev- 
enth,  and   thirteenth  Articles,   will  clearly  show  that  the 
English  Reformers  took  the  Protestant  ground  as  to  the  state 
both  of  infants  and  adults  before  baptism  ;  not  because  it  was 
Protestant  ;   but  because  the  Protestants  took  the   Catholic 
ground,  fro7n  which  the  Council  of  Trent^  following  the^ater 
schoolmen,  had  departed.     There  is  a  most  interesting  paper, 
published  in  full  by  Dr.  Jenkyns,  for  the  first  time  in  1833, 
entitled,  "  Notes  on  Justification,  with  AuthoriHes  from  Scrip- 
tures, the  Fathers,  and  the  Schoolmen" — conjectured  by  Dr. 
Wordsworth  to  have  been  the  foundation  of  the  three  Homi- 
lies of  Salvation,  Faith,  and  Good  Works."     It  "  is  valua- 
ble," Dr.   Jenkyns  observes,  "  not  only   as  a  specimen  of 
Cranmer's  method  of  study,  and  as  a  concise  and  undoubted 
declaration  of  his  tenets  on  justification,  but  as  an  evidence, 
hitherto  not  generally  known,   of  his  contributions  to.  our 
first  book  of  Homilies."     The  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
faith  only,  must  not  be  separated  from  Baptism,  which  is  the 
act  granting  Justification  on  the  part  of  God,  by  which  the 
merits  of  Christ  are  applied  to  wash  away  the  spot  and  stain 
of  sin.     Hence  the  Homily  says,  "  our  office  is  not  to  pass 
the  time  of  this  present  life  unfruitfully  and  idly,  after  that 
we  are  baptized  or  justified  ;  and  so  the  title  of  the  thirteenth 
article,  "  Of  works  before  justification,"  menuB  works  before 
baptism  ;  as  after  what  has  been  said,  the  reader  will  clearly 
see  from  the  mention  of  the  scholastic  doctrine  of  deserving 
the  grace  of  congruity.     In  conformity   with  this,  is  the  ex- 
pression of  the  twelfth   article,  entitled   "  Of  good  works." 
No  works  are  called  good,  but  such  as  "  are  the  fruits  of 
faith  and  follow  after  Justification,"  i.  e.  after  Baptism.     The 
natural  man   listens  to  the  word  of  God,  which   teaches  him 
that  even  his  best  works  are  sinful,  and  that  he  can  be  saved 
only  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.     The  Holy  Ghost, 
operating  through  the  word,   alarms  his  conscience.  *"  Re- 
pentance and  Faith  spring  up  in  his  heart,  and  he  immedi- 

*  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  vol.  iv.  pp.  274-280. 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND    JUSTIFICATION. 


153 


ately  cries  out,  "  See  here  is  water ;  what  doth  hinder  me 
to  be  baptized  ?" 

It  will  immediately  be  seen  that  by  Baptism  the  whole 
aspect  of  things  is  changed.  By  that  solemn  covenant,  man 
is  brought  into  a  state  of  grace  and  pardon,  and  hence  the 
Homily,  immediately  after  the  passage  quoted,  adds :  "  Much 
less  it  is  our  office,  after  that  we  be  once  made  Christ's 
members,  to  live  contrary  to  the  same ;  making  ourselves 
members  of  the  Devil,  walking  after  his  enticements,  and 
after  the  suggestions  of  the  world  and  the  flesh,  whereby  we 
know  that  we  do  serve  the  world  and  the  Devil  and  not 
God." 

We  proceed  now  to  the  two  remaining  points  of  examina- 
tion by  the  Theologians  and  Fathers : 

II.  THE    ADULT    JUSTIFIED,  AND  CONTINUING    IN  GRACE. 

III.  THE  ADULT  WHO  FALLS  FROM  GRACE  AND  RECOVERS  IT. 


On  the  nineteenth  of  July,  a.  d.  1546,  the  Council  of 
Trent  began  the  examination  of  these  second  and  third  states 
unitedly.  Fonseca,  Bishop  of  Castellamare,  discoursed  long 
and  learnedly,  that  "  no  special  aid  of  God  was  commonly 
requisite  to  a  just  man," — he  meant,  thereby,  a  justified,  or 
baptized  man, — "  in  order  to  observe  the  Commandments,  but 
only  that  general  aid  which  to  no  just  man  is  denied.  Spe- 
cial aid  was  required  only  when  some  precept  of  extraordi- 
nary difficulty  was  to  be  encountered."  He  distinguished 
works  into  four  classes,  the  last  of  which  only  originated 
from  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  and  works  in  us." 

On  the  22d  of  July,  the  Abbot  Isidore  Clarius,  of  Bres- 
cia, "  remarked  that  in  the  Scriptures,  justice  or  righteous- 
ness is  attributed  to  faith,  but  salvation  to  works.  With  the 
heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth 
confession  is  made  unto  salvation.  For  faith  is  the  cause  of 
righteousness,  good  works  done  in  righteousness,  the  cause 
of  salvation."  This,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  approached 
very  near  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England. 

In  the  congregation  of  July  24th,  the  Canons  which  had 
been  framed  by  the  deputies  were  produced  for  ex'amination. 
All  but  five  admitted  the  term  habit  as  applied  to  grace,  and 
agreed  that  it  was  intrinsic  in  us,  and  not  the  mere  extrinsic 


154  REPLY    TO   milker's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  the  mere  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.''*  This  was  the  point  in  which  the 
schools  had  departed  from  Peter  Lombard,  and  in  which  they 
were  at  issue  with  the  Protestants.  *'  The  whole  form  of 
the  decree,"  says  Pallavicini,  "  was  displeasing  to  many  :" 
and  for  this  cause  it  was  referred  to  Seripando,  the  General 
of  the  Augustinians,  the  order,  be  it  observed,  to  which  Luther 
had  belonged.-\  This  was  not  very  agreeable  to  the  Legates, 
who  wished  to  hasten  the  decision  ;  but  Cardinal  Pacheco 
and  the  Imperialists  wished  to  give  the  Emperor  time  to 
make  terms  with  the  Lutherans. 

Seripando  maintained  a  /z<;oyb/d  justification.  The  first, 
by  faith  and  not  works,  is  a  passing  from  the  condition  of 
enemies  to  that  of  sons  of  God  ;  not  as  the  reward  of  works, 
but  by  the  pure  mercy  of  the  Saviour,  obtained  for  us  by 
faith,  and  not  merited  for  us  by  repentance,  although  that  is 
required  ;  for  repentance  before  justification,  as  the  work  of 
an  enemy  of  God,  cannot  be  meritorious  ;  and  that  which 
takes  place  after  it,  finds  sin,  and  consequently  eternal  pun- 
ishment, already  remitted.  Justification  taken  in  the  other 
sense,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  life  of  a  just  man,  truly  requires 
works  ;  and  therefore  the  Apostle  says  that  in  Jesus  Christ 
that  faith  is  availing  which  worketh  by  love.  This  justice, 
however,  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  works  alone,  but  to  faith 
likewise,  since  works,  though  necessary,  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient if  the  other  justice  (or  righteousness)  of  Christ  which 
makes  up  for  all  our  defects,  were  not  applied  to  us  through 
faith. "if  If  Seripando  had  not  used  the  term  intrinsic  in  us 
as  applicable  to  the  first  righteousness,  it  would  be  difl[icult 
to  say  where  his  doctrine  diflTered  from  that  of  the  Lutherans. 
But  there  were  only  five  theologians  who  adhered  to 
him,  three  of  whom  were  of  his  own  Augustinian  order  ; 
and  the  decrees  he  had  drawn  up  '*  were  so  changed,"  says 
Pallavicini,  "  that  he  no  longer  acknowledged  them  as  his 
own." 

There  was  another  point  in  which  the  Council  contended 
against  the  Lutherans.  They  maintained  that  the  adult  who 
repents,  believes,  and  is  baptized,  may  be  certain  that  he  is 

*  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  ix.  num.  2,  3,  5,  7. 

t  Pallav.  ut  sup.  num.  10. 

X  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xi.  num.  4,  5,  7. 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


155 


in  a  state  of  grace.  The  majority  of  the  Council,  on  the 
other  hand,  favoured  what  has  since  been  universally 
received  in  the  Roman  Communion,  that  every  adult  having 
committed  actual  sin,  cannot  be  certain  that  it  has  been 
remitted  to  him,  unless  God  specially  reveals  it  to  him.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  be  sure  that  we  are  just,  because  faith 
reveals  but  three  modes  of  justification :  first,  by  the  sacra- 
ment— he  that  believes  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  second, 
by  confession — *  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  shall  be 
remitted  unto  them  :  but  to  the  value  of  baptism  the  intention 
of  the  minister  is  requisite,  which  is  an  internal  act  of  the  heart, 
and  no  man  can  have  certain  evidence  of  it.  The  third  mode 
of  justification  is  martyrdom,  which  is  completed  by  death; 
and  therefore,  in  life  there  can  be  no  certainty  of  being  on 
that  account  in  grace.*  Thus,  for  the  sake  of  maintaining 
their  novel  doctrine  that  the  efficacy  of  baptism  depends  on  the 
intention  of  the  minister,  they  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  Lu- 
therans, that  a  man  coming  with  repentance  and  faith  to  bap- 
tism, may  be  certain  that  he  is  thereby  translated  into  a  state 
of  grace ! 

From  the  consideration  of  the  certainty  of  being  in  a 
state  of  grace,  the  Council  proceeded  to  examine  the  subject 
of  predestination  and  election.  Fra  Paolo  says  expressly 
that  they  found  nothing  on  this  point  to  censure  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Luther,  or  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  ;  and  that  the 
seven  or  eight  propositions,  which  are  what  we  now  call  Cal- 
vinism, were  extracted  from  the  works  of  the  Zuinglians.f — 
Fleury  says  the  same  thing,:}:  and  Archbishop  Lawrence  has 
triumphantly  proved  it.§  In  fact,  the  admission  that  we  are 
brought  by  baptism  into  a  state  of  pardon  and  acceptance,  is  an 
admission  that  we  are  thereby  elected,  not  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  Calvinists  and  Arminians  use  the  term,  but  in  that  of 
the  ancient  Church,  and  as  that  Church  understood  its  use  in 
Scripture.  Throughout  the  Old  Testament  the  nation  of  Is- 
rael are  called  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  His  peculiar  trea- 
sure, Wis  chosen  ones,  or  elect,  the  special  people  whom  He 


*  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xiii.  num.  2.  3. 

t  Sarpi  St.  lib.  ii.  Ixxx. 

X  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  143,  §  70. 

§  See  Bampton  Lectures  and  Notes,  passim. 


156  REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


hath  chosen  or  eleetcd  unto  himself.  The  same  terms  are 
applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  spiritual  Israel,  the 
Christian  Church.  Let  any  one  compare  Exod.  xix.  5,  6, 
Deut.  xiv.  2,  Isai.  xliii.  20,  with  1  Pet.  ii.  9,  and  he  will 
see  that  the  covenant  privilejres  to  which  circumcision  enti- 
tied  the  Jew,  are  applied  to  the  corresponding  Sacrament  ot 

Baptism.  ,      ,      i        •        r*u 

That  such  is  and  has  always  been  the  the  doctrine  ot  the 
Entrlish  Communion,  is  apparent  from  the  Offices  of  infant 
and'' adult  baptism,  and  the  Catechism.     In  the  Offices,  the 
prayer  of  consecration,  which  has  continued  from  1549,  with 
only  verbal  alterations,  beseeches  God  to  grant  that  the  chil- 
dren or  adults  to  be  baptized  may  ''ever  remain  in  the  num- 
ber of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children.  "     The  Catechism 
also,  in  that  part  which  was  prepared  by  Cranmer,  not  only 
puts  into  the   mouth  of  every  baptized  child  the  words,  "  I 
heartily  thank  our  heavenly  Father  that  he  hath  called  me  to 
this  state  of  salvation,''  and  *'  I  pray  God   to  give  me  his 
grace  that  I  may  continue  in  the  same  unto  my  life's  end  ; 
but  it  also  makes  him  express  in  the   Baptismal  Creed  his 
belief  "  in  God  the  Holy  Ghost  who  sanctifieth  me  and  all  the 
ELECT  people  of  God."     This  is  perfectly   intelligible  if  all 
«'  baptized  or  justified  "  persons,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
Homily,  are  by  that  sacrament  admitted  to  the  first  election, 
which  is  that  of  privileges,  and   consequently  conditional.— 
They  are  to  give  diligence  to  make  their  calling  and  elec- 
tion sure,"*  that  they  may  not  "fall."      Hence  we^pray 
that  they  may  "  remain    in  the  number  of  the   elect,"  and 
that   they    may  ''continue    in    this  state  of  salvation    unto 
their  lives'    end."     Let    the   range  of  the  controversy    be 
kept   continually   within  the  limits   assigned  to  it,   before 
and   after  Baptism,   as  the   formal   act  of  Justification,   and 
it  will    be    seen  that  the  English  Articles,  from  the    ninth 
to  the    eighteenth  inclusive,   are  perfectly  consistent  with 
our  Liturgy    and  Offices,   and  with   the    ancient   language 
of  the  Catholic  Church.     They  are  inconsistent  only  with 
the  writings  of  the  later  Schoolmen,  who  flourished   in  the 
Latin  Church  during  the  four  hundred  years  between  Peter 
Lombard  and  the  Council  of  Trent ;  and  it  is  only   from  the 


»  2  Pet.  i.  10. 


OKIGINAL    SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION, 


157 


recent  injudicious  revival  of  the  study  of  these  Schoolmen  by 
men  of  subtle  or  inexperienced  and  imaginative  minds,  that 
so  much  depreciation  of  our  Articles  has  been  uttered.  The 
sixteenth  Article  asserts  that  "  after  we  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  I.  e.  after  baptism,  "we  may  depart  from  grace 
given,  and  fall  into  sin  ;  and  by  the  grace  of  God,  we  may 
Irise  again  and  amend  our  lives."  That  this  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Calvinian  theory,  the  Calvinists  themselves  admitted 
in  1572,  when  they  complained  that  "  the  Book  of  Articles  of 
Christian  Religion  speaketh  very  dangerously  of  falling  trom 
grace,  which  is  to  be  reformed,  because  it  too  much  inclineth 
to  their  (the  Pelagians')  error."  *  But,  if  we  keep  m  mind 
the  questions  discussed  when  the  Articles  were  written,  we 
shall  see  that  this  Article  was  obviously  meant  of  "  adults 
who  fall  from  the  grace  of  baptism  and  afterwards  recover 
it,"  which  was  the  third  question.  ^ 

In  like  manner,  the  seventeenth  Article  was  intended  to 
meet  the  second  question  ;    or  to  consider  the  state  of  adults 
who,  having  been    admitted    to  the  first   election,  or    the 
state   of  Justification,  continue   in  that  grace  to  their  lives 
end      It  therefore  cautiously  uses  the  term  predestination, 
not  'simply,  but  with  the  important  addition,— /-o  Ife,  in  order 
to  show,  that  they  only  will  be  finally  saved  who,  having  been 
called,  have  through  grace  obeyed   the   calling,    and  been 
baptized  into  Christ ;   and  who  then  become  truly  conformed 
to  his  image,  and  walk  in  newness  of  life.     It  is  m  fact  no 
more  than  a  description  of  the  passage  of  the  true  Christian 
through  time  to  eternity.     It  touches  not  the  case  of  the  hea- 
then   leavincr  them  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  ;  nor 
does' it  touch  upon  that  subtle  dispute,  as  to  the  moving  cause 
of  God's  predestination,  which  afterwards  sprang  from  the 
Calvinian  theory,  and  constituted  the  ground  of  contention 
between  the  Gomarists  and  the  Arminians. 

By  keeping  constantly  in  view  this  historical  testimony, 
the  dates  alone  will  show  the  construction  which  ought  to 
be  placed,  on  the  proceedings  of  the  Tridentine  Synod  until 
January  13th,  1547,  and  the  London  Synod  m  1552  The 
decrees  of  Trent  were  finally  drawn  up  by  the  Cardinal 

*  Second  Admonition,  quoted  by  Waterland,  Supplement  to  case  of 
Arian  Subscription,  1722,  p-  52. 

8 


158     REPLY  TO  MILNER's  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


Cervini,  afterwards  Pope,  under  the  title  of  Marcellus  11. 
They  were  so  blotted  and  interlined  with  notes  and  remarks, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  copy  them  three  times  ;  and  they  were 
afterwards  retouched  in  many  places,  before  the  sixty-eight 
BISHOPS  AND  DIVINES,  the  Small  number  present  at  the  final 
session,  could  agree  upon  them  !  *  Even  then,  the  Imperial- 
ists and  the  Politicians  remained  dissatisfied.  No  ambassa- 
dors of  princes  were  present ;  and  the  French,  when  pressed 
to  appear  at  the  session,  replied  that  they  would  come,  if  the 
Cardinal  Pacheco  would  appear  there  in  the  name  of  the 
Emperor,  and  confirm  the  proceedings  with  his  signature. 
As  he  refused  to  do  this,  the  French  Ambassadors  remained 
in  their  lodgings,  and  those  of  the  Emperor  were  ordered  to 
leave  Trent.f  The  Emperor,  in  fact,  did  not  wish  to  have 
the  doctrines  then  upheld  by  the  Protestants  condemned.  He 
wished  for  the  decrees  of  reformation  of  sundry  abuses  to  be 
passed,  that  the  Protestants  might  be  conciliated,  and  to  leave 
the  subject  of  doctrines  as  open  as  possible  ;  but  the  Papal 
party  insisted  on  proceeding  with  equal  pace  in  the  decision 
of  doctrines,  and  the  reformation  of  abuses,  rigidly  exacting 
the  one,  and  extenuating,  as  much  as  possible,  the  other. 
Yet  the  studied  ambiguity,  and  the  cautious  omissions  ren- 
dered necessary  by  the  internal  divisions  of  the  Council,  in 
many  parts  of  the  decrees  on  Original  Sin  and  Justification, 
together  with  the  plentiful  anathemas  pronounced,  produced, 
when  publicly  known,  the  derision  of  acute,  and  the  lamen- 
tation of  many  serious  minds.  Before  the  dissolution  of  the 
Council,  the  Imperialists  wished  to  have  had  the  decrees  of 
Original  Sin  and  Justification  revised,  alleging  that  they  had 
been  passed  with  indecent  haste,  when  there  was  a  very 
inconsiderable  number  present.  But  they  were  outvoted, 
and  obliged  to  yield. ij: 

When  therefore  the  bull  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  required  men, 
under  the  pains  and  penalties  of  an  oath,  to  say,  as  in  the 
fourth  Article  of  his  Creed,  "  I  embrace  and  receive  all 
things  and  every  thing  which  have  been  defined  and  declared  by 
the  Holy  Council  of  Trent,  concerning  Original  Sin  and  Jus- 

*  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xiii.  num.  4,  Fleury,  liv.  143,  §  76. 

t  Fleury,  ut  sup.  §  78. 

X  Lett,  et  Mem.  de  Vargas,  p.  36.j 


ORIGINAL   SIN    AND   JUSTIFICATION. 


159 


tification,'^  it  bound  upon  the  members  of  the  Roman  Com- 
munion the  dreadful  burthen  of  professing  a  doctrine  neither 
Apostolic  nor  Catholic.  I  have  shown,  from  their  own  his- 
torian, and  from  the  confession  of  two  most  distinguished 
Cardinals,  Pole  and  Pacheco,  the  one  an  Englishman,  the 
other  a  Spaniard,  that  they  were  venturing  to  define  as  an 
article  of  faith,  what  had  been  before  considered  as  only  a 
matter  of  opinion.  A  small  and  inconsiderable  body,  acting 
under  impulses  derived  from  Rome,  presumed  to  call  them- 
selves oecumenical.  Their  whole  proceedings  betrayed 
ignorance,  precipitation,  and  passion  ;  and  when  they  had 
gained  their  point,  they  obstinately  refused  any  reconsidera- 
tion, though  their  decision  was  derided  at  the  time,  for  its 
studied  ambiguity,  and  was  lamented  by  the  wise  and  good, 
because  it  crossed  the  boundary  between  Pelagianism  and 
Orthodoxy,  and  widened  a  breach  which  moderate  measures 
might  have  closed. 

How  much  wiser  and  better  and  more  dignified  was  the 
conduct  of  the  London  Synod  of  1552 !  Calling  no  man 
master,  they  agreed  with  the  Protestants,  because  they  had 
taken  the  ancient  catholic  ground,  as  to  the  state  of  man 
before  Baptism,  and  as  to  the  simple  act  of  Faith  preceding 
Justification.  Throughout  the  Bible,  from  righteous  Abel,  to 
the  latest  recorded  example,  no  blessing  from  God  could  be 
obtained  without  faith.  The  paralytic,  whose  hand  was 
withered  and  powerless,  was  told  to  stretch  it  out,  and  he 
obeyed,  and  was  healed.  The  ten  lepers  were  told  to  show 
themselves  to  the  priest,  and  as  they  went  they  were  healed. 
It  was  not  from  their  own  power ;  nor  was  there  any  merit 
in  the  act  by  which  they  showed  that  they  believed  the 
promises  of  the  Divine  Healer.  When  healed,  their  state 
was  different.  The  -hand  which  was  restored  to  soundness, 
was  then  required  to  work.  The  leprous  stain  being  re- 
moved, the  lepers  were  to  mingle  again  in  the  active  business 
of  life.  This  distinction  between  justifying  and  lively  faith 
is  accurately  made  in  the  Articles,  and  is  so  clearly  expressed 
by  Bishop  Marsh,  that  I  shall  conclude  this  chapter  with  his 

words :  . 

"  We  assert,  that  unassisted  man  can  do  nothing  which  is 
pleasing  to  God  :  the  Church  of  Rome  asserts,  that  unassisted 
man  may  at  least  do  some  things  pleasing  to  God."     .     .     . 


160  REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


«  The  thirteenth  Article  declares  that  works  done  before  Jus- 
tification  cannot  possibly  be  good  works,  but  that  they  have 
rather  the  nature  of  sin.     Now  this  is  positively  demed  in 
the  seventh  Canon  made  at  the  Sixth  Session  of  the  Council 
of  Trent.     Again,  our  twelfth  Article  says  that  good  works 
follow  after  Justification ;  whereas,  according  to  the  tenets 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  there  must,  at  least,  be  so?ne  good 
works  which  precede  Justification.      For  the  ninth  Canon  ot 
the  Sixth  Session  asserts,  that  man  is  not  justified  by  Faith 
alone.''     ..."  But  since  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  it 
denies  Justification  by  Faith  only,  doos  not  assert  Justifica- 
tion  by  Works  onlyy  and  our  eleventh  Article  is  frequently  so 
explained,  as  to  make  it  include  Works,  the  Romanists  have 
hence  taken  occasion  to  represent  our  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion as  virtually  agreeing  with  their  own.''     The  Bishop  then 
proceeds  to  state  their  argument  in  all  its  force,  and  to  con- 
fute it  by  showing  the  distinction  between  justifying  Faith 
and  a  lively  Faith.     "  Good  works  are  the  natural  fruits  of 
Faith  ;  and  therefore  its  necessary  fruits,  when  Faith  is  be- 
come a  lively  or  productive  Faith.     In  this  state,  we  have 
the  same  union  of  Faith  and  Works  which  the  Romanist  re- 
quires for  Justification.     But  it  is  a  mistake,  that,  according 
to  the  tenets  of  our  Church,  justifying  Faith  is  a  lively  Faith. 
According  to  the  tenets  of  our  Church,  it  neither  is  nor  can 
he  such,  and  it  is  tlie  want  of  distinction  between  justifying 
Faith  and  lively  Faith,  to  which  we  may  entirely  ascribe  the 
numerous  inconsistencies  and   contradictions  in  which  the 
Doctrine  of  Justification  has,  within  these  few  years,  been 
involved.     When  our  twelfth  Article  asserts,  that  *  a  lively 
Faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by 
the  fruit,'  the  Article  alludes  to  works  which,  as  there  stated, 
<  follow  o/Zer  Justification,'  and  consequently  had  no  share  in 
the  causes  of  Justification.    Indeed,  the  thirteenth  Article  de- 
nies even  the  'possibility  of  good  works  before  Justification. 
The  Faith,  therefore,  which  hfid  previously  justified,  cannot 
have  been  a  lively  or  productive  faith.     For  then   it  would 
have  been  a  Faith,  accompanied  with  good  works,  which,  be- 
fore Justification,  cannot  even  exist.     The  doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication,  therefore,  as  maintained  by  the  Church  of  England, 
is  decidedly  at  variance  with  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome, 


ORIGINAL    SIN    AND    JUSTIFICATION. 


161 


« If  it  be  objected  that  this  vindication  of  the  Church  of 
England  from  the  charge  of  similarity  with  the  Church  of 
Rome,  exposes  the  former  to  the  charge  of  Antinomianism, 
I  answer,  that,  although  Justification  in  the  sense  of  our 
Articles  (the  same  also  of  St.  Paul)  does  not  require  for  its 
attainment  the  performance  of  good  works  ;  they  are  indis- 
pensably necessary  for  the  attainment  o^  final  and  everlasting 
Salvation.     The  distinction  between  Justification  and  final  or 
everlasting   Salvation  is  declared  in  the  very  Exordium  of 
our  first  Homily ;  where  it  is  said  that  Holy  Scripture  con- 
tains  all  necessary  instruction  *  for  our  Justification  and  ever- 
lastincr  Salvation?    Indeed,  our  final  and  everlasting  salvation 
is  our^'happiness  in  a  future  state,— in  that  state  where  our 
Saviour  himself  has  declared  that  he  will  *  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  Works.""     But  our  Justification  takes  place 
in  the  present  life ;  it  takes  place  at  our  admission  to  the 
Christian  Covenant,  for  which  nothing  more  is  required  than 
Repentance,  whereby  we  forsake  sin,  and  Faith,  whereby  we 
steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God.     On  forsaking  sin, 
therefore,  we  are  justified  by  Faith,  even  before  it  is  a  lively 
faith,  or  before  it  has  produced  works  positively  good,     but 
thoucrh  the  Faith  which  is  sufficient  to  justify,  is  not  a  lively 
Faith,  we  must  take  care  that  it  becomes  so  when  we  are  jus- 
tified ;  or  our  justification  will  be  of  no  avail.     And  we  must 
guard  against  the  fatal  error,  that  justifying  Faith  leads,  of 
Necessity,  to  good  works.     Good  works  are  indeed  its  nfl^wra/ 
fruits-  but  they  are  not  its  necessary  fruits  till  l^aith  is 
becom'e  a  lively  or  productive  Faith.      And,  as  a  tree  rrmy 
wither  before  it  has  produced  lis  fruits,  so  Faith  may  wither 
before  it  has  produced  good  tcorks.     But  if  \\does^wnheT,  and 
good  works  are  not  produced,  the  Faith,  which  had  admitted 
us  to  the  Christian  Covenant,  will  fail  of  its  intended  pur- 
pose ;  and  we  shall  lose  everlasting  salvation.     In  this  man- 
ner is  the  Church  of  England  vindicated,  on  the  one  hanct, 
from  the  charge  of  Antinomianism,  while  it  is  shown  on  the 
other  hand  to  differ  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  f 

t  Comp-ViewoftheChurchesofEngland  and  Rome.   Camb.  1814. 
8vo.  pp.  49-53. 


162 


REPLY    TO   MILNEr's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE    SACRIFICE   OF   THE    MASS. 

By  an  artful  stratagem,  the  fifth  Article  of  the  Creed  of 
Pope  Pius  IV.  connects  the  doctrine  of  Sacrifice  with  that  of 
Transubstantiation.  The  object  of  this  artifice  it  is  easy  to 
discover ;  and  it  has  had  a  powerful  effect  upon  unlearned 
and  undiscriminating,  or  prejudiced  and  timid  minds.  The 
doctrine  of  Sacrifice  is  primitive  and  Catholic ;  that  of 
Transubstantiation  is  of  recent  date,  and  is  not  Catholic.  I 
therefore  claim  the  right  of  disjoining  and  viewing  them 
separately. 

Sacrifice  is  derived  from  two  Latin  words  signifying  the 
performance  of  sacred  or  holy  rites.  So  the  correlative  word 
sacerdosy  which  we  translate  priest,  signifies  one  who  is  de- 
voted to  God  for  the  performance  of  sacred  rites  or  offices. 
In  like  manner  Altare  an  Altar,  signifies  an  elevated  place  ; 
and  by  the  ancient  Latins  was  used  exclusively  for  the  wor- 
ship of  the  superior  gods ;  ara  being  used  for  the  worship 
both  of  superior  and  inferior  divinities  or  deified  mortals.* 
In  Greek,  the  word  -^vala  is  derived  from  ^tw  to  slay,  and 
must  therefore  have  had  respect  originally  to  the  slaughter 
of  animals  offered  in  sacrifice.  But  that  it  had  long  been 
used  in  a  much  more  extended  sense,  so  as  to  denote  offer- 
ings in  general,  whether  bloody  or  unbloody,  is  apparent  from 
its  application  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Hebrew  word  nnsia  minchah  sijrnifies  an  Oblation  or 
Offering  in  general,  whether  bloody  or  unbloody ;  and  for 
this  word,  -d^vala  is  used  by  the  LXX  more  than  a  hundred 
times.  In  Gen.  iv.  3-5,  the  offering  of  Cain,  as  well  as  that 
of  Abel,  is  called  a  sacrifice  ;  and  in  the  fourth  and  fiftli 
verses,  the  version  of  the  LXX  reads  thus:  "And  God 
looked  upon  Abel  and  his  gifts  ;  but  to  Cain  and  his  sacri- 
ficeSf  he  gave  no  heed."  Hence,  St.  Paul,  affirming  that 
Abel  offered  in  faith,  says  that  his  sacrifice  was  inore  com- 
plete than  the  sacrifice  of  Cain — more  complete,  in  that  it 
showed  forth  the  merits  of  the  Great  Atonement  by  a  bloody 

*  Virg.  Buc.  Eel.  V.  vs.  65,  66,  and  Servius  in  loco. 


THE   SACRIFICE   OF   THE   MASS. 


163 


offering.  Both,  however,  were  sacrifices. —So  the  remarka- 
ble  passage  in  Malachi,  allowed  on  all  hands  to  be  a  predic- 
tion  of  the  Christian  Dispensation,  affirms  that  from  the 
rising  of  the  sun  even  to  the  going  down  of  the  same — -in 
every  place  incense  shall  be  offered  unto  my  nanae  and  a 
pure  offering.^  In  the  original  it  is  a  pure  minchah,  and  m 
the  Greek,  a  pure  sacrifice.  The  Greek  word  .s^sv,^  like 
the  Latin  sacerdos,  signifies  a  minister  of  holy  things  ;  and 
though  the  word  &vaiaurrigiov  is  like  •&vaia  derived  trom  ^vw, 
yet  it  is  used  by  St.  Lukef  for  the  Altar  of  Incense,  where 
no  victim  was  ever  sacrificed. 

Havino-  thus  defined  our  terms,  the  next  object  to  be  con- 
sidered,  nmst  be  the  different  kinds  of  sacrifices  under  that 
law  which  the  Saviour  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  tultil.:|: 
These  were  four  :  the  Holocaust  or  Whole-burnt-offermg  ; 
the  Sin-Offering;    the  Trespass-Offering ;  and  the  Peace- 
Offering.     All  these  sacrifices  were  typical  of  blessings  to 
man  in  and  through  the  precious  blood-shedding  of  Jesus 
Christ      The  Holocaust  or  Whole-burnt-offermg  was  yolun- 
tarv6— the  tribute  of  a  grateful  heart  from  man  to  his  Maker, 
acknowledging  the  countless  blessings   of  his   providence 
bestowed  through  the  merits  of  the  one  God-man.     It  de- 
noted  the  voluntary  devotion  of  himself  with  all  his  powers 
and  faculties  to  the  service  of  God,  his  heart  whol  y  con- 
sumed  in  a  flame  of  love,  and  ascending  with  grateful  odour 
to  the  skies.     Not  so  the  Sin  and  Trespass-offerings.     They 
were  the  acknowledgment  of  innumerable  offences,— sins  ot 
commission  and  omission ;  and  they  were  offered  to  a  justly 
offended  God,  who  is  of  purer  eyes  than  even  to  behold  ini- 
quity,  and  who  is  reconciled  to  his  guilty  creatures  only  by 
the  blood  of  his  dear  Son.     They  were  exacted  with  the 
most  rigid  severity,  though  in  (different  gradations  from  the 
priest,  the  whole  congregation^  the  civil  ruler,  and  the  pri- 
vate  citizen.     For  every  transgression  of  God  s  law,  how- 
ever  minute,  even   in   cases  of  involuntary  ignorance,  and 
where  the  individual  only  suspected  that  he  had  offended  a 
victim  must  be  brought  from  the  herd  or  from  the  fold.     JNo 
exception  but  that  of  extreme  poverty  was  allowed ;  and 


*  Mai.  i.  11. 


t  Cap.  i.  11. 
§  Levit.  i.  3. 


X  Matt.  V.  17. 


164  REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


then  two  turtle-doves,  or  two  young  pigeons,  or  if  too  poor 
even  for  these,  an  offering  of  fine  flour*  might  be  substituted. 
For  the  poorest,  however,  some  victim  must  be  offered,  on 
which  he  was  to  lay  his  hand,  confessing  his  sins,  and  trans- 
ferring them,  by  that  expressive  symbol,  to  the  innocent  sub- 
stitute. Its  blood  was  then  shed  by  the  priest  as  an  atone- 
ment or  act  of  reconciliation  for  the  sin  of  the  offender,  and 
God  was  pleased  to  forgive  his  sin  and  restore  him  to  favour. 
The  fourth  kind  of  sacrifices  could  never  be  offered  till  all 
sin  and  trespass-offerings  had  been  paid,  the  sinner  justified 
or  considered  as  righteous,  and  therefore  restored  to  a  state 
of  peace  and  acceptance  with  God.  For  this  reason  they 
were  called  Peace-offerings,  and  were  subdivided  into  volun- 
tary,  votive,  and  Eucharistic.f  The  LXX  constantly  trans- 
late sacrifices  of  salvation,  where  the  Latin  has  hostia 
pacificorum,  and  our  translation  offerings  of  peace.  The 
Eucharistic,  are  called  tuqI  alvsaicog,  sacrifices  of  praise, 
where  Aquila  reads  ilxagKnlag,  of  thanksgiving.:]:  The  vol- 
untary and  the  votive,  were  offered  in  supplication  for  future 
benefits  •  the  Eucharistic,  for  those  already  obtained.  Of  the 
latter,  the  Psalmist  speaks  when  he  says :  "  Quid  retribuam 
Domino,  pro  omnibus  quoe  retribuit  mihi  ?    Calicem  salutaris 

accipiam ;  et  nomen  Domini  invocabo Tibi  sacrifi- 

cabo  hostiam  laudis,  et  nomen  Domini  invocabo."§  "  What 
shall  I  render  unto  the  Lord  for  all  his  benefits  toward  me  ? 
I  will  take  the  cup  of  salvation  and  call  upon  the  name  of  the 

Lord. 1  will  offer  to  thee  the  sacrifice  of  thanksfrivinff, 

and  will  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."j|  But  "it^is  not 
possible,"  as  St.  Paul  argues,  "  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats  should  take  away  sins.  Wherefore,  when  He  cometh 
into  the  world  he  saith.  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest 
liot,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me  :  In  burnt-offerinrrs  and 
sacrifices  for  sin  thou  hast  had  no  pleasure.  Then  said  I,  Lo 
I  come.''%  The  quotation  is  from  the  Greek  version  of  the 
fortieth,  or,  as  it  is  there  numbered,  the  thirty-ninth  Psalm. 
A  body  was  prepared  for  the  Son,  that  He  might  come  into 

•  ^^^^i;^-  Y-   .    „  t  Levit.  vii.  11, 12, 16. 

X  See  Montf.  Orig.  Ilexap.  torn.  i.  pp.  527,  574. 
i  I"  Lat.  Ps.  cxv.         II  In  Heb.  and  Eng.  Ps.  cxvi.  12,  13,  17. 
Ti   Heb.  X.  4-7. 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF   THE   MASS. 


165 


the  world,  and  by  his  own  death  for  ever  abolish  all  bloody 
rites.  But  the  sacrifices  which  he  abolished  are  here  ex- 
pressly limited  to  the  Holocausts,  and  the  Sacrifices  for  sins. 
As  the  Holocausts  were  voluntary,  and  not  piacular  or  expia- 
tory, St.  Paul's  argument  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  limited  to  Sin-and-Trespass- 
offerings.  The  great  day  of  Atonement  was  the  Annual 
and  most  solemn  Expiation  of  the  sins  of  the  whole  nation. 
The  High-Priest  entered  then  once  into  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
to  prefigure  thereby  the  ascension  of  Christ  into  Heaven. 
It  was  f?om  its  own  nature  an  imperfect  atonement,  looking 
forward  to  that  which  was  final  and  permanent.  From  the 
consideration  of  this  general  atonement,  the  Apostle  proceeds 
to  argue  with  respect  to  the  case  of  every  priest,*  showing 
that  all  sin-offerings  whatsoever,  for  individuals,  as  well  the 
priests  as  the  people,  were  for  ever  abolished  by  the  death  of 
Christ  upon  the  Cross. 

Oh  what    an   immense   relief  was  this  to  sinful  man! 
Consider  only  the  slavish  fear  with  which  every  man  must 
have    watched  his   own    conduct,   when,  for   the    minutest 
offence  or  neglect  in  the  observance  of  so  burdensome  a 
law,  he  must  bring  a  victim,  valued  according  to  his  rank 
and   station   in    society,    before  he    could    be  justified    and 
allowed  to  partake  of  the  Peace-offerings,  and   thus    feast 
with  God   as  his   friend  !     For  the  difference   between  the 
Sin-offerings  and   the  Peace-ofterings  will  be  placed  instill 
stronger  light,  when  it  is  observed  that  no  offender  could  eat 
of  his  own  Sin-offering.    When  an  individual  Israelite  sinned, 
he   brought  his  victim  to  the  priest ;  and,  when  the  Lord's 
portion  liad  been  consumed,  the  remainder  was  the  priest's  per- 
quisite.    But  when   the  High-Priest  himself  sinned,  or  the 
whole  congregation  sinned,  no  part  of  the  victim  was  eaten. 
but  after  the  Lord's  portion  was  consumed  on  the  altar,  the 
whole  of  the  remainder  was  carried  out  of  the  camp  as  a 
polluted  thing,  and  there  burned  to  ashes.f     Jesus,  our  great 
High-Priest,   was  *'  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate 
from  sinners."      He  needed  not  to  offer  up  sacrifice  daily 
for   his  own  sins.f  and  yet,  as  the  great  sin-offering  for  all 
his  creatures,  he  bore  the  reproach  of  uncleanness,  and  "suf- 


*  Heb.  X.  11. 


t  Levit.  iv.  1-21. 
8» 


X  Heb.  vii.  26,  27 


166  REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


fered  without  the  gate."*  What  a  load  of  sin  is  now  re- 
moved !  By  the  one  baptism,  corresponding  with  the  one 
GREAT  ATONEMENT,  he  hath  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
own  blood  ;  and  by  this  application  of  his  merits  as  a  Sin- 
offering  to  our  souls,  He  hath  justified  us  freely  by  his  grace. 

As  there  was  a  great  annual  Sin-offering  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  so  was  there  also  a  great  annual  Peace-offering — 
the  Passover.  In  all  the  Peace-offerings,  the  justified  man, 
being  in  a  state  of  grace,  was  allowed  to  feast  with  his 
Maker.  Even  then,  he  laid  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  his 
offering,  to  denote  that  though  justified,  he  was  still  sinful, 
and  owed  every  privilege  to  the  all-atoning  sacrifice  of  his 
Redeemer.  But  when  the  priest  had  slain  the  victim,  and 
the  Lord's  portion  had  been  consumed  on  the  altar,  the  breast 
and  the  right  shoulder  only  were  given  to  the  priest,  and  the 
remainder  was  returned  to  the  offerer  that  he  might  feast 
upon  the  sacrifice. f 

With  the  Peace-offerings  were  inseparably  connected 
unleavened  cakes  and  wafers  of  fine  flour,  the  one  mingled, 
the  other  anointed,  with  oil,  and,  excepting  at  the  Pass- 
over, leavened  hread.X  The  oil,  as  is  well  known,  was  a 
symbol  of  those  gifts  and  graces  which  are  poured  forth 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  At  all  these  feasts,  there  was  also 
commanded  a  drink-offering  of  wine. §  When  therefore  our 
Lord  at  the  Passover,  took  the  bread  and  wine,  all  the 
Evangelists  who  relate  the  transaction,  as  well  as  St.  Paul 
in  his  account,  use  the  expressive  word  fiV«^/o"T//(T«(:||  which 
is  capable  of  an  active  and  transitive  signification.  It  appears 
from  the  history  of  the  Institution,  to  be  synonymous  with 
euyLo/iJawc,  and  means  that  He  then  set  them  apart  to  be 
the  Eucharistic  oblation  or  the  Sacrifice-of-praise-and-thanks- 
giving.  Thenceforth  they  were  to  be  substituted  for  the 
bloody  Peace-ofterings  of  the  XdiW^presupiiosingXhc  great  Sin- 
offering  of  the  Cross,  and  commemorative  of  it,  but  not  repeating 
it.  The  Eucharist  is  the  voluntary, but  not  the  piacular  sacrifice 
ofthe  Christian  Church,  perpetually  praising  the  adorable  mer- 
cies of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  and  for  ever  thanking  him  for 

»  Heb,  xiil.  11, 12.  t  Comp,  Levit.  iii.  and  vii. 

X  Levit.  vii.  11-13.  §  Levit.  xxiii.  18.  Numb,  xxviii.  14,  xxix.  39. 

II  St.  Mat.  xxvi.  27.  St.  Mark  xiv.  23.    St.  Luke  xxii.  17, 19.    St. 
Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  24. 


THE   SACRIFICE   OF   THE   MASS. 


167 


that  one  oblation  of  himself  once  offered,  by  which  he  "  blotted 
out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances,"  by  which  we  were  con- 
demned,   ^' and  took  it  out  ofthe  way,  naihng  it   to   his 
cross  "*     This  was  the  sense  in  which  the  ancient  Church 
re<Tarded  the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice ;  and,  if  necessary,  I 
miffht  quote  all  the  great  writers,  from  the  Apostolic  age  to 
the  close  ofthe  fifth  century,  speaking  of  it  as  the  Sacnhce- 
of.praise-and-thanksgiving,  but  never  as  piacular  or  expia- 
torv  in  itself.  When  therefore  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1551, 
passed  their  decrees  on  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  they 
touched  very  lightly  on  the  subject  of  sacrifice,  because 
they  were  far  from  being  agreed  upon  it;t  and  it  was  not 
till  nearly  eleven  years  after,  and  under  another  pontiti,  Pms 
IV.,  that  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharist  was  finally 
determined.     Even   then,  as   Pallavicini   himself  acknow- 
ledges,  great  doubts  were  expressed,  whether  the  Eucharist 
could  be  considered  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.|     Seripando, 
who  had  now  become  a  Cardinal,  and  presided  in  the  Coun- 
cil  as  Lecrate,  wished  to  avoid  the  question  entirely,  assigniiig 
as  a  reasSn,  that  it  "  had  been  proposed  and  even  examined  in 
the  Council  under  Julius  III./'  i.  e.  in  1551,  when  the  sub- 
ject  ofthe  Eucharist  was  properly  before  them.§  Seripa^^^^^^ 
iaw  clearly,  that  having  passed  the  decree  of  TramuhsUinm^ 
tion    they  were  caught  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma  with 
regard  to^Sacn^e.  For  if,  at  the  moment  in  which  the  words 
THIS  IS  MY  BODY,  and  THIS  IS  MY  BLOOD,  are  pronounced  by 
the  nrLr  there  s  "  a  conversion  made  ofthe  whole  substance 
of  tKe^d^a^^^^^  into  his  body  and  blood,"  then  it  must 

hale  be:n  so,  when  our  blessed  Lord  pronounced  those 
words  or  He  was  not  then  acting  as  a  priest.  If  He  did  act 
Is  a  prL  and  the  words  pronounced  did  produce  a  transub- 
^tantE  then  while  his' body  was  still  unbroken  and  his 
blood  still  unshed  upon  the  cross.  He  held  in  his  hands  his 
oZ-body  and  blood  together  with-  his  own  "  soul  and  divu 
Z^r^  And  furthermo're,  He  violated  the  law  concermng 
sin-offerings,  by  ordering  the  offenders  to  eat  the  victim, 
and  to  drink  his  blood ! 

The  vain  attempt  to  reconcile  such  contradictions,  occa- 

,  rr.\  ii   14  +  Pallav.  xii.  cap.  ii.  num.  3. 

t  Paliav.  xviii.  c.  i.  num.  10.       §  Fleury,  Uv.  160,  sec.  xi. 


168 


REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


sioned  infinite  embarrassments.  Tlie  Fathers  of  the  Council 
were  divided  into  four  classes:  1.  Some  maintained  that 
Christ  sacrificed  himself  for  us  in  the  Supper,  and  there 
offered  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  2.  Others  that  he  there 
offered  a  sacrifice,  but  only  a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanks- 
giving ;  3.  A  third  class  maintained  that  Christ  offered  him- 
self to  the  Father  in  the  Supper,  but  did  not  say  in  what 
manner ;  4.  And  a  fourth  class  tried  to  reconcile  the  rest, 
by  proposing  various  expedients,  all  differing,  and  each 
defending  his  own.*  As  Pallavicini  is  extremely  reserved, 
we  must  follow  Fra  Paolo  and  Fleury,  in  giving  some 
account  of  the  discussion,  from  the  eleventh  to  the  eighteenth 
of  August,  1562. 

Fra  Paolo  states  that  the  Jesuit  Salmeron  made  himself 
extremely  busy  in  going  privately  among  those  who  were 
known  to  be  opposed,  and  especially  those  who  had  not  yet 
declared  their  sentiments,  to  persuade  the  former  at  least  to 
he  silent  or  to  relax  their  opposition^  and  the  latter  to  vote  in 
the  affirmative  on  the  question  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  in 
the  Eucharist.  By  these  importunities,  he  made  himself  so 
troublesome,  that  several  of  the  Bishops  publicly  complained 
of  it.  This  account  is  confirmed  in  the  secret  correspond- 
ence of  the  Nuncio  Visconti.f  One  of  these,  the  Bishop  of 
Veglia,  spake  with  great  force  in  the  negative.  He  begged 
them  to  consider  that  if  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  he  once  offered, 
and  he  sufficient  to  expiate,  no  other  can  he  offered,  excepting 
as  an  act  of  thanksgiving.  Whoever  maintains  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  in  the  Supper,  is  absolutely  obliged  to  confess  that 
we  are  redeemed  by  that,  and  not  by  the  death  of  Christ ; 
contrary  to  Scripture  and  Christian  doctrine,  which  ascribe 
redemption  to  the  latter.  If  any  one  should  say  that  it  is 
all  one,  being  begun  in  the  Supper  and  finished  on  the  Cross, 
he  runs  into  another  absurdity  equally  great,  because  it  is  a 
contradiction  to  say  that  the  beginning  of  sacrifice  is  sacri- 
fice ;  for  if  after  the  beginning,  it  had  ceased  and  gone  no 
further,  no  one  would  have  said  that  He  had  sacrificed  ;  and 
if  Christ  had  not  been  obedient  to  the  Father  even  unto  the 
death  of  the  Cross,  but  had  only  made  oblation  in  the  Supper, 

*  Pallav.  lib.  xviii.  cap.  2,  num.  1-4,  9,  10,  11. 

t  Fra  Paolo  St.  lib.  vi.  sec.  49.     Fleury,  liv.  160,  sec.  15. 


Il^ 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS. 


169 


it  could  not  be  said  that  we  were  redeemed.  Wherefore  it 
could  not  be  said  that  such  an  oblation  could  be  called  a  Sac- 
rifice because  it  was  the  beginning  of  one.  The  Bishop 
added  that  he  would  not  obstinately  maintain  that  these  rea- 
sons were  unanswerable,  but  he  would  say  that  the  Council 
ought  not  to  bind  the  understandings  of  any  who  had  so  much 
reason  for  being  persuaded  of  their  opinion.  He  went  on 
to  say  that  as  calling  the  Mass  a  Propitiatory  sacrifice  would 
make  no  difficulty  with  him,  so  he  could  not  be  satisfied  if 
in  any  manner  it  should  be  affirmed  that  Christ  offered.  It 
was  sufficient  to  say  that  He  commanded  the  oblation,  be- 
cause, said  he,  if  the  Synod  assert  that  Christ  offered,  it  was 
either  the  Propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  so  he  will  fall  into  the 
above-mentioned  difficulties,  or  it  was  not  the  Propitiatory, 
and  so  we  cannot  conclude  from  it  that  the  Mass  is  propitia- 
tory. Nay,  it  will  be  said  on  the  contrary,  that  if  the  obla- 
tion of  Christ  in  the  Supper  was  not  propitiatory,  much  less 
can  that  of  the  priest  be  so  in  the  Mass.  He  concluded  that 
it  would  be  the  safest  way  to  say  only  that  Christ  commanded 
the  Apostles  to  offer  a  Propitiatory  sacrifice  in  the  Mass. 
Fra  Paolo  adds  that  "  the  Bishop's  speech  had  such  an  effect, 
as  to  make,  as  it  were,  the  common  opinion,  that  no  mention 
should  be  made  of  a  Propitiatory  sacrifice  offered  by  Christ 
in  the  Supper.  His  opinion,  nevertheless,  was  finally  em- 
braced only  by  a  part.''*  Pallavicini  virtually  admits  that 
the  Council  were  generally  of  this  opinion,  but  were  gained 
over,  when  he  concludes  thus:  "The  result  was,  that 
whereas  many  at  the  beginning  were  opposed  to  the  declara- 
tion of  this  offering  made  by  Christ  of  himself  in  any  man- 
ner in  the  Supper,  in  the  end,  the  very  contrary  of  that 
which  usually  happens  in  the  most  subtle  disputes  took 
place — insomuch  that  almost  all,  even  those  who  were  most 
opposed  to  it,  voted  in  the  affirmative."! 

Their  whole  embarrassment  arose  from  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation.   In  the  ancient  Church  there  was  no  diffi- 
culty.    St.  Chrysostom,  commenting  on  St.  John,  xvii.  19, 
explains  it  as  the  act  of  oblation.     "  I  sanctify  myself,"  that  ■ 
is,  /  offer  to  thee  a  sacrifice.X     Our  Lord,  acting  as  the  High 

*  Fra  Paolo,  ut  sup.  t  Pallav.  lib.  xviii.  c.  2,  num.  12. 

t  S.  Chrys.  Op,  ed.  Montfauc.  torn.  viii.  p.  484.* 


170 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Priest,  consecrated  himself  as  the  victim.  After  thus  conse- 
crating himself,  and  substituting  for  the  bloody  symbols  under 
the  law,  the  unbloody  symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  to  be  for- 
ever offered  in  remembrance  of  his  death  and  passion.  He  laid 
aside  for  a  time  his  Sacerdotal  office,  and  appeared  only  as 
the  Lamb  of  God,  a  meek  and  passive  victim.  He  was  offered 
by  the  Jewish  High  Priest,  on  the  Altar  of  the  Cross,  and 
thus  forever  abolished  all  Sacrifice  for  sin.  But  he  com- 
manded his  Apostles  to  offer  up  continually  the  Sacrifice-of- 
praise-and-thanksgiving,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  Catholic  doctrine  of  Sacrifice  is  held  by  the  Churches 
of  the  English  Communion.  The  Canon  of  the  London 
Synod  of  1552,  entitled  "  Of  the  perfect  oblation  of  Christ 
made  upon  the  Cross"  is  confined  by  its  very  terms  to  the 
Expiatory  sacrifice.  It  agrees,  in  substance,  with  the  XXXIst 
Article  of  1562 ;  and  to  show  this  agreement  I  place  them 
side  by  side. 


31.  Of  the  one  oblation  of  Christ 
finished  upon  the  cross. 

The  offering  of  Christ  once  made, 
is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitia- 
tion      

and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  both  original  and 
aclual,  and  there  is  none  other  sat- 
isfaction for  sin,  but  that  alone. 
Wherefore  the  sacrifices  of  masses, 
in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said, 
that  the  priest  did  offer  Christ  for 
the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have 
remission  of  pain  and  guilt,  were 
blasphemous  fables,  aud  dangerous 
deceits." — Sparrow's  Collection^  p. 
102. 

The  substitution  of  "  finished  "  for  "made  "  in  the  title 
of  the  Article  is  remarkable,  as  occurring  in  the  same  year 
in  which  the  doctrine  of  Sacrifice  was  discussed  in  the 
Council  of  Trent ;  and  it  clearly  shows  that  the  London 
Council  considered  the  oblation  as  having  been  begun  by  our 
Saviour  at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist.  That  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  who  drew  up  the  original  article  of  1552,  took  the 
ancient  and  Catholic  view  of  the  subject,  will  be  evident 


**  Of  the  perfect  oblation  of  Christ 
made  upon  the  cross. 

The  offering  of  Christ  made  once 
for  ever,  is  the  perfect  redemption, 
the  pacifying  of  God's  displeasure, 
and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  both  original  and 
actual,  and  there  is  none  other  sat- 
isfaction for  sin  but  that  alone. 
Wherefore  the  sacrifices  of  masses 
in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said, 
that  the  priest  did  offer  Christ  for 
the  quick  and  the  dead  to  have 
remission  of  pain  or  sin,  were 
forged  fables,  and  dangerous  de- 
ceits."— Sparrow's  Collection, p.  50. 


THE   shCRIFICE   OF   THE   MASS. 


171 


from  the  following  passage  in  his  answer  to  Gardyner.  The 
deposed  Bishop  of  Winchester  had  quoted  a  passage  from 
the  History  of  the  Council  of  Nice  by  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus, 
written  about  the  year  476,  which  he  had  thus  "  englished :" 
<  Again  in  this  godly  table  we  should  not  in  base  and  low 
consideration  direct  our  understanding  to  the  bread  and  cup 
set  forth,  but  having  our  mind  exalted,  we  should  understand 
by  faith  to  be  situate  in  that  table  the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  sacrificed  of  the  priests 
not  after  the  manner  of  other  sacrifices  ;  and  we  receiving 
truly  the  precious  body  and  blood  of  the  same  Lamb,  to  be- 
lieve these  to  be  the  token  of  our  resurrection ;  and  for  that 
we  receive  not  much  but  a  little,  because  we  should  know 
that  not  for  saturity  and  filling,  but  for  sanctification.'* 

To  this  Cranmer  replies  :  "For  answer  to  Nicene  Coun- 
cil, it  speakelh  of  a  Sacrifice  of  lauds  and  thanksgiving  which 
is  made  by  the  priest  in  the  name  of  the  whole  church, 
and  is  the  Sacrifice  as  well  of  the  people  as  of  the  priest  : 
this  Sacrifice,  I  say,  the  Council  of  Nice  speaketh  of,  but 
it  speaketh  not  one  word  of  the  Sacrifice  propitiatory ^  which 
never  none  made,  but  only  Christ,  nor  he  never  made  it 
any  more  than  once^  which  was  by  his  death.  And  where- 
soever Christ  shall  be  hereafter,  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  he 
shall  never  he  sacrificed  again,  but  the  church  continually  in 
remembrance  of  that  Sacrifice  maketh  a  sacrifice  of  laud  and 
praise,  giving  evermore  thanks  unto  him  for  that  propitiatory 

Sacrifice And  although  Nicene  Council  call 

Christ  the  Lamb  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  yet 
doth  it  not  mean  that  by  the  Sacrifice  of  the  priest  in  the 
mass,  but  by  the  Sacrifice  of  himself  upon  the  Cross.  But 
here,  according  to  your  accustomed  manner,  you  alter  some 
words  of  the  Council,  and  add  also  some  of  your  own.  For 
the  Council  said  not,  that  the  Lamb  of  God  is  sacrificed  of 
the  priests  not  after  the  manner  of  other  Sacrifices,  but  that 
he  is  sacrificed  not  after  the  manner  of  a  Sacrifice..  And  in 
saying  that  Christ  is  sacrificed  of  the  priest  not  like  a  Sac- 
rifice, or  after  the  manner  of  a  Sacrifice,  the  Council  in 
these  words  signifies  a  difference  between  the  Sacrifice  of  the 

»  The  passage  may  be  found  in  Labbe  Concilia,  Vol.  ii.  col.  233» 
Hardouin,  Vol.  i.  col.  428. 


172 


REPLY  TO  MILNER  S  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


THE  SACRIFICE  OF  THE  MASS. 


173 


priest  and  the  Sacrifice  of  Christy  which  upon  the  Cross  offered 
himself  to  be  sacrificed,  after  the  manner  of  a  very  Sacri- 
fice, that  is  to  say,  unto  death  for  the  Sins  of  the  world. 
Christ  made  the  bloody  Sacrifice  which  took  away  Sin,  the 
priests  with  the  Church  make  a  Commemoration  thereof  with 
lauds  and  thanksgiving,  offering  also  themselves  obedient  to 
God  unto  death.  And  yet  this  our  sacrifice  takcth  not  away 
our  sins,  nor  is  not  accepted  but  by  his  Sacrifice.  The  hleed- 
ingofhim  took  away  our  Sins,  not  the  eating  of  him."* 

In  another  place  the  Archbishop  says :  "  That  all  men  may 
the  better  understand  this  Sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  he  made 
for  the  great  benefit  of  all  men,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the 
distinction  and  diversity  of  Sacrifices.  One  kind  of  Sacrifice 
there  is,  which  is  called  a  propitiatory  or  merciful  Sacrifice, 
that  is  to  say,  such  a  sacrifice  as  pacifieth  God's  wrath  and 
indignation  and  obtaineth  mercy  and  forgiveness  for  all  our 
sins,  and  is  the  ransom  for  our  redemption  from  everlasting 

damnation Another  kind  of  Sacrifice  there  is, 

which  doth  not  reconcile  us  to  God,  but  is  made  of  them 
that  be  reconciled  .by  Christ  to  testify  our  duties  unto  God, 
and  to  show  ourselves  thankful  unto  him;  and  therefore  they 
be  called  sacrifices  of  laud,  praise,  and  thanksgiving. 

"  The  first  kind  of  Sacrifice  Clirist  ofiercd  to  God  for  us  ; 
the  second  kind  we  ourselves  offer  to  God  by  Christ.  And 
by  the  first  kind  of  Sacrifice  Christ  ofl^ered  also  us  unto  his 
Father :  and  by  the  second  we  ofl^er  ourselves  and  all  that 
we  have  unto  him  and  his  Father. "f  Compare  now  this 
language  of  Cranmer  with  the  Canon  of  the  Mass,  and  the 
Office  for  the  Communion  as  it  was  originally  penned  by 
him,  the  dictate  of  his  deliberate  and  unbiassed  judgment, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  the  idea  of  the  Eucharistic  sac- 
rifice is  there  fully  carried  out,  the  idea  of  a  Propitiatory  sac- 
rifice is  carefully  excluded. 

Not  so  in  the  Roman  Missal.  The  most  superficial 
glance  will  show  how  prominent  and  all-pervading  is  the 
idea  of  Piacular  sacrifices.  And  this  constitutes  its  great 
<;orruption.  No  rule  was  more  certain  and  unalterable  than 
that  of  the  Sin-offering,  that  the  person  or  persons  for  whom 

•  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  Vol.  iii.  p.  532-534. 
t  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  448,  449. 


A 


it  was  offered  could  not  eat  of  the  victim.  When  the  priest 
offered  for  his  own  sin,  the  victim  was  never  eaten  but  was 
burned  without  the  camp.*  And  yet,  in  the  Mass,  by  a 
strange  inconsistency,  the  priest  offers  for  his  own  sins,  and 
then  eats  the  flesh  and  drinks  the  blood  of  the  victim.  So 
when  the  offering  was  made  for  the  whole  congregation,  the 
priests  being  included,  the  whole  was  burned  without  the 
camp.f  When  the  priest  offered  for  the  sins  of  individuals 
he  could  eat,  but  the  offender  could  not.  The  very  thought, 
then,  of  a  piacular  sacrifice,  naturally  led  to  that  of  the 
priest's  receiving  without  the  people  and  for  the  people.  He 
offers  Christ  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  to  have  remission 
of  pain  and  guilt.  Well  did  the  Article  drawn  up  by  Cran- 
mer call  such  sacrifices  *'  forged  fables  and  dangerous 
deceits !"  Well  did  the  Article  of  1562  substitute  for 
"  forged  fables" — blasphemous  fables  !  Solitary  Masses  by 
the  priest;  the  neglect  of  the  Communion  by  the  people, 
because  it  was  enough  that  the  priest  should  partake,  and 
thereby  atone  for  their  sins  ;  the  release  of  souls  in  purga- 
tory, on  paying  the  priest  for  saying  these  solitary  masses ; 
— all  these  frightful  corruptions  grew  out  of  this  one  enor- 
mous error! 

By  the  act  of  Edward  VI.,  Anno  2  and  3,  Cap.  i.,  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  certain  of  the  most  learned 
and  discreet  Bishops,  &c.,  were  appointed  to  draw  up  a  uni- 
form service  for  the  Communion,  "  having  as  well  eye  and 
respect  to  the  most  sincere  and  pure  Christian  religion  taught 
by  the  Scripture ^  as  to  the  usages  in  the  primitive  Church. "j^ 
The  profound  acquaintance  of  Cranmer  with  Ancient  Litur- 
gies, enabled  him  to  prepare  an  Office,  many  parts  of  which, 
in  the  opinion  of  a  competent  judge,  can  be  traced  back  six- 
teen hundred  years,  and  much  to  the  Apostolic  age.§ 

The  leading  principles  of  the  English  Liturgy,  as  a  Eu- 
charistic sacrifice,  will  be  best  explained  by  pointing  out 
their  connection  with  those  of  the  Peace-offerings  under  the 
Levitical  Law. 

A  Peace-offering  of  thanksgiving  whenever  made  was 
voluntary,  and   always  implied  a  feast  upon   the  sacrifice. 

*  Lev.  iv.  12.  t  Lev.  iv.  21. 

t  Gibson's  Codex,  tit.  xi.  cap.  i.  p.  295. 

§  Palmer's  Origines  Liturgicae,  ed.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  2. 


174 


REPLY   TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


It  was  to  be  eaten  the  same  day  in  which  it  was  offered,  and 
none  was  to  be  left  until  the  morning,'^  Hence  it  became 
necessary  to  provide  beforehand  how  many  should  be  pre- 
sent at  the  feast.  For  this  reason,  at  the  institution  of  the 
Passover,  the  lambs  were  to  be  chosen  "  according  to  the 
number  of  the  souls.-\  So  it  was  ordered  in  the  English 
Ritual,  that  "  So  many  as  intend  to  be  partakers  of  the  holy 
Communion,  shall  signifie  their  names  to  the  curate,  over 
night,  or  else  in  the  morning  afore  the  beginning  of  Matins, 
or  immediately  after."  Matins  or  morning  prayer  is  a  dis- 
tinct  service,  and  was  designed  to  be  offered  so  long  before 
the  Communion  as  would  allow  of  this  notice  being  given  ; 
in  order  that  the  priest  should  not  consecrate  more  of  the 
elements  than  could  be  conveniently  consumed. 

It  was  ordered  under  the  law  that  no  unclean  person 
should  eat  of  the  Peace-offering.  "As  for  the  flesh,  all  that 
be  clean  shall  eat  thereof;"  and  if  any  unclean  person  should 
eat  of  it,  even  that  soul  should  be  cut  off  from  his  people. J 
Hence  it  was  that  St.  Paul,  threatening  the  Corinthians  for 
not  discerning  the  Lord's  body,  tells  them,  "  For  this  cause 
many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and  many  sleep."§ 
And  hence  the  English  Ritual  provided,  that  if  any  one  of 
the  persons  who  should  thus  signifie  their  names  to  the 
curate,  "  be  an  open  and  notorious  evil  liver,  so  that  the 
congregation  by  him  is  offended,  or  have  doen  any  wrong 
to  his  neighbours  by  worde  or  dede,  the  curate  shall  call 
him  and  advertise  hym  in  any  wise  not  to  presume  to  the 
Lorde's  table,  untill  he  have  openly  declared  hymselfe  to  have 
truly  repented  and  amended  his  former  naughtie  life,"  &c. 
All  sacrifice  for  sin  being  for  ever  ended  by  the  one  oblation 
of  Christ  once  offered,  and  that  sacrifice  having  been  applied 
to  the  soul  in  the  one  holy  baptism,  repentance,  whereby  we 
forsake  sin,  and  a  lively  faith  in  God's  mercy  through  Christ, 
with  a  thankful  remembrance  of  his  death,  and  to  be  in 
charity  with  all  men,  are  the  requisites  for  our  continual 
sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving. 

That  the   holy  Communion  should  be  a  daily  sacrifice 
wherever  it  could  be  so  administered,  and  that  as  soon  as  the 


•  Lcvit.  vii.  15. 
X  Levit.  vii.  20,21. 


t  Exod.  xii.  4. 
§  1  Cor.  xi.  30. 


THE   SACRIFICE    OF   THE    MASS. 


175 


people  could  be  led  to  seek  it  voluntarily,  it  should  be  admin- 
istered on  Sundays,  and  all  other  days  for  which  a  Collect, 
Epistle,  and  Gospel  are  appointed,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing directions :  "  In  Cathedral  churches  or  other  places 
lohere  there  is  daily  Communion,  it  shall  be  sufficient  to  read 
this  exhortation  once  a  month"  (that  is,  the  exhortation  to 
those  who  are  minded  to  receive  the  holy  sacrament). 
"  And  in  parish  churches,  upon  the  week  days,  it  may  be 
left  unsay ed.  And  if  upon  the  Sunday  or  holy  daye  the 
people  be  negligent  to  come  to  the  Conimunion,  then  shall 
the  priest  earnestly  exhort  his  parishioners  to  dispose  them- 
selves to  the  receiving  of  the  holy  Communion  more  dili- 
gently," &c. 

I  have  given  these  extracts  to  show  where  the  real  point 
of  difTerence  is  between  the  Roman  Missal,  and  the  English 
Order,  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  As  it 
was  drawn  up  at  the  Reformation,  by  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
not  from  the  modern  Roman  Missal,  but  from  the  Ancient 
Anglo-Saxon  Offices,  it  breathes  the  spirit  of  all  the  primitive 
Liturgies.  Subsequent  changes  were  adventitious,  the  re- 
sult of  foreign  influences ;  but  the  great  principle,  excluding 
all  idea  of  propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  reducing  it  to  a  simple 
sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  remains  unaltered. 

Such  was  the  plan  of  the  English  reformation  ;  a  plan, 
which  if  it  had  not  been  checked  and  thwarted  by  contend- 
ing factions,  would  have  brought  the  Church  back  to  her 
primitive  fervour  and  purity.  Its  object  was  to  restore  the 
daily  worship  of  all  classes  of  people,  from  the  monarch  on 
his  throne,  to  the  beggar  who  knows  not  where  to  seek  his 
next  lodging  or  his  next  meal.  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  his  righteousness,  and  all  these  things  shall  be  add- 
ed unto  you  ;  for  your  heavenly  Father  knoweth  that  ye 
have  needjof  them."  Its  object  was  to  restore  the  voluntary 
homage  of  consenting  hearts,  the  daily  sacrifice  of  praise  and 
thanksgiving  for  the  countless  mercies  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus, 
even  to  those  who  seem  the  most  abject.  It  taught  the  peo- 
ple to  make  religion  the  daily  business  of  their  lives.  Bap- 
tized into  Christ,  members  of  his  mystical  body,  they  are  to 
offer  themselves  continually,  a  living  Holocaust,  holy  and 
acceptable  to  God.  Crucified  with  Christ,  like  him  they 
must  rise  again  to  newness  of  life.     The  Holy  Ghost,   the 


176  REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Spirit  of  love,  presides  as  the  vicegerent  of  Christ,  invisibly 
but  with  an  all  potent  energy  over  his  body  the  Church. — 
His  priests  minister  continually  unto  the  people  whom  He 
hath  committed  to  their  charge,  in  prayer,  in  preaching  the 
word,  and  in  the  Sacraments.  Christ  Jesus,  our  Great 
High  Priest,  offers  up  our  spiritual  sacrifices  to  the  Holy 
Trinity,  pleading  forever  in  our  behalf  the  merits  of  the  one 
great  atonement.  Never  do  his  priests  and  people  assemble 
(Ml  earth  without  his  presence.  "  We  have  an  altar  whereof 
they  have  no  right/tO  eat  which  serve  the  Tabernacle."* — 
As  the  body  is  strengthened  by  bread  and  wine,  so  is  the 
soul  refreshed  by  the  mystical  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  "  To  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget 
not ;  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased. "f 


CHAPTER  VI. 


OF  THE  REAL  PRESENCE,  AND  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

As  usual  Dr.  Milner  assumes  the  very  point  to  be  proved. 
He  confounds  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  with  Tran- 
substantiation.  But  he  and  his  brethren  are  to  be  excused  ; 
because  they  are  hound  by  a  dreadful  oath  to  follow  the 
Council  of  Trent ;  and  the  Council  of  Trent  commands  them 
to  make  this  assumption  under  pain  of  Anathema.  In  the 
thirteenth  session  held  on  the  eleventh  of  October,  1551,  in 
the  decree  concerning  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
the  first  chapter  denounces  the  denial  of  the  truth  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood,  which  they  assume  to  be  Transubstantiation, 
as  a  flagitious  and  Satanic  act  by  impious  men,  against  the 
universal  sense  of  the  Church.  And  then  in  the  fourth 
chapter,  the  Council  professes  to  declare  anew  what  was  al- 
ways the  persuasion  of  the  Church  of  God,  that  *'  by  the  Conse- 
cration of  the  bread  and  wine  a  conversion  is  made  of  the 
whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the  substance  of  the  body 
of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine 
into  the  substance  of  his  blood,  which  conversion  is  suitably 


*  Heb.  xiii.  10. 


t  Heb.  xiii.  16. 


V 


OF   THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       177 

and  properly  called  by  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  Transub- 
stantiation."* 

The  sophism  can  be  detected  only  by  disjoining  the  two 
subjects,  which  are  entirely  and  essentially  different. 

Sec.  1.   The  Real  Presence. 

When  our  Lord,  before  his  last  Passover,  was  preparing 
his  sorrowful  disciples  for  his  approaching  departure,  he 
promised  not  to  leave  them  comfortless,  or  as  it  is  in  the 
original  Greek,  and  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible, 
orphans.  "  I  will,"  said  he,  "  come  to  you.  Yet  a  little 
while  and  the  world  seeth  me  no  more  ;  but  ye  see  me : 
because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also.  At  that  day  ye  shall 
know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you. 
He  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is 
that  loveth  me  ;  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my 
Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  to 
him.  Judas  saith  unto  him,  (not  Iscariot,)  Lord,  how  is  it 
that  thou  wilt  manifest  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the 
world  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him.  If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  words ;  and  my  Father  will  love  him, 
and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."f 
This  promise  was  made  not  to  the  Apostles  only,  but  to  all  who 
knoio  that  Christ  is  in  the  Father,  that  is,  in  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead;  and  they  in  him,  that  is,  in  his  body  the  Church;  and 
he  in  them,  that  is,  loho  have  his  commandments  and  keep  them. 

But  how  was  all  this  to  be  ?  It  is  explained  in  the 
preceding  verses.J  "  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he  will 
give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
for  ever."  In  our  translation  it  is,  "  I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter.^^  That  the  idea 
of  Comfort  or  Consolation  is  included  in  the  Greek  word 
Paraclete,  no  one  will  deny ;  but  it  means  also,  an  advo- 
cate or  intercessor,  and  is  so  translated  1  John  ii.  1  :  "If 
any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 

*  Can.  et  Dec.  Cone.  Trident,  ed.  Aid.  Romas,  1564,  Ixii-iv.^ 
t  St.  John  xiv.  18-23. 

X  •*  Et  ego  rogabo  Patrem,  et  alium  paraclitum  dabit  vobis,utmaneat 
vobiscum  in  aBternum." 


!■ 


178     REPLY  TO  MILNER^S  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


OF  THE  REAL  PRESENCE  AND  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.   179 


Christ  the  righteous."*  In  the  original  it  is  Paraclete. 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Comforter,  was  about  to  ascend  in  his  hu- 
man nature,  to  be  the  all-powerful  advocate  or  intercessor 
for  his  Church  with  the  Father.  But  before  his  departure 
bodily,  he  promised  his  Church  to  send  another  Comforter  or 
Paraclete.  And  hence,  on  the  last  great  day,  at  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  in  the  autumn  preceding  his  passion,f  "  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying,  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto 
me  and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture 
hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water. 
But  this,"  adds  St.  John,  "  spake  he  of  the  Spirit  which  they 
that  believe  on  him  should  receive ;  for  the  Iloly  Ghost  was 
not  yet  given  ;  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."  % 

The  personal  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  perpetual 
presence  in  the  Church  on  earth,  is  the  perpetual  and  real 
presence  of  the  whole  blessed  and  undivided  Trinity.  A 
great  part  of  the  bliss  of  Paradise  proceeded  from  the  inti- 
mate union  of  man  with  God,  in  whose  image  and  likeness 
he  was  created.  That  bliss  was  lost  by  the  fall,  but  restored 
through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  from  the  moment 
of  that  gospel  promise,  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise 
the  serpent's  head,  to  the  ascension  of  the  risen  Saviour,  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  and  in  him  the  whole  Trinity, 
was  ever  present  with  his  Church  :  first  in  the  patriarchal 
age  by  the  visible  glory  of  Jehovah  between  the  cherubim  ;§ 
and  then  under  the  law,  by  that  same  glory  resting  on  the 
Ark  ;  and  lastly,  after  his  incarnation,  in  the  person  of  the 
God-man  Christ  Jesus.  When  he  ascended  up  on  high  to 
present  himself  as  the  Lamb  that  had  been  slain, ||  he  sent  the 
third  person  of  the  Trinity,  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  preside 
over  his  mediatorial  kingdom,  till  the  last  enemy  shall  be 
destroyed,  till  He  shall  come  again  in  glory  to  deliver  up 
that  kingdom  to  the  Father,  and  God  the  Holy  Trinity, 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  shall  be  all  in  all. IT     As  the 

*  Vulg.    "  Si  quis  peccaverit,  advocatum  habemus  apud  Patrem." 

t  See  the  Author's  Harmony.  Chron.  Introd.  to  the  History  of  the 
Church,  p.  576.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  lasted  that  year  from  the 
first  to  the  eighth  of  October. 

X  *'  Nondum  enim  erat  Spiritus  datus,  quia  Jesus  nondum  erat  glori- 
ficatus."     St.  John  vii.  37-39. 

§  Gen.  iii.  24.  ||  Rev.  v.  6.  t  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28, 


Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  were  with  the  Son,  in  their  inef- 
fable unity  before  his  ascension  ;  so  from  his  ascension,  till 
he  shall  come  again  in  like  manner,  are  the  Father  and  the 
Son  present  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  same  ineffable  unity. 
I*  He  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it 
is  that  loveth  me :  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my 
Father,  and  1  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  to 
him"* 

In  speaking  of  the  discussions  in  the  Council  of  Trent 
on  Justification,  I  mentioned  as  a  concession  of  Pallavicini, 
that  the  schools  had  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  Peter  the 
Lombard,  during  the  four  centuries  intervening  between  him 
and  that  Council.  (See  pp.  145,  148.)  His  words  are  these  : 
"  Fra  Lorenzo  Mazzocchio,  a  Servite,  was  the  only  one  who 
followed  the  opinion  attributed  to  the  Master  of  the  Sentences, 
ABANDONED  BY  THE  SCHOOLS,  that  grace  is  not  a  thing  inte- 
rior in  us,  but  the  exterior  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  He, 
together  with  Fra  Gregorio,  of  Siena,  Dominican,  FraGrego- 
rio  Perfetto,  of  Padua,  Augustinian,  and  another  of  the  same 
religious  order,  were  of  opinion  as  to  the  second  head,  that 
free-will  concurs  passively  and  not  actively  with  the  work  of 
Justification;  which  opinion  was  not  esteemed  Catholic. 
The  Legates,  therefore,  wrote  to  Rome,  that  all  the  Theolo- 
gians, except  three  or  four,  had  spoken  in  a  Catholic  man- 
ner."f 

The  mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  defined  by  the  Master 
of  the  Sentences,  to  be  the  temporal,  in  order  to  distinguish  it 
froni  the  eternal  procession,  the  point  of  dispute  between  the 
Latins  and  the  Greeks, — "  the  temporal  procession  from  the 
Father,  the  Son,  a?id  himself,  by  which  He  is  sent  and  given  to 
the  faithful.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  love  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  by  whom  they  mutually  love  one  another  and  us. 
The  Holy  Ghost  himself  is  love  or  charity,  by  which  we 
love  God  and  our  neighbour  ;  when  this  charity  is  so  in  us 
that  it  makes  us  love  God  and  our  neighbour,  then  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  said  to  be  sent  and  given  to  us.  And  whosoever 
loves  that  love  by  which  he  loves  his  neighbour,  in  him  God 
loves  ;  for  love  itself  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  himself." 
He  then  proceeds  to  give  the  following  authorities  from  St. 


•  St.  John  xiv.  21. 


t  Pallav.  lib.  viii.  cap.  iv.  2. 


180  REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


AucTustine  on  the  Trinity  :*    "  Whosoever  loves  his  neigh- 
bou°r,  must  consequently  love  principally  that  which  is  love 
itself.     Now  God  is  love;  and  therefore  it  follows  that  he 
must  principally  love  God."     And  again  :  *^  God  is  love,  as 
John  the  Apostle  says.     Why  then  do  we  go  and  hasten  into 
Heaven  above,  or  in  the  Earth  beneath,  in  search  of  Him 
who  is  with  us  if  we  are  willing  to  be  with  Him  ?t     i-et  no 
one  say,  I  know  not  what  I  should  love.     Let  him  love  his 
brother,  and  he  will  love  Love   itself.      For   he   knoweth 
more  the  Love  by  which  he  loves,  than  the  brother  whom  he 
loves      Behold  he  can  now  know  God  more  than  his  brother ; 
know  more  plainly,  because  He  is  more  present ;  know  more, 
because  He  is  more  within  him  ;  know  more,  because  He  is 
more  sure.     To  embrace  God-love,  is  by  love  to  embrace 
God  ±     That  is  love  which  binds  in  one  society  all  good 
angels    and    all   the    servants   of    God   with   the    bond   of 

^^^\  fo^'bear  to  multiply  quotations  from  St.  Augustine,  and 
shall  merely  observe  that,  throughout  his  work  on  the  Trinity, 
he  quotes  the  Scriptures  continually  to  prove  that  the  love  ot 
God  and  man  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  is  given  unto  us.  We  know  that  all  things  work  to- 
gether  for  good  to  them  that  love  God  ;  and  that  love  is 
wrought  in  us  by  the  Spirit.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  love 
God  without  loving  our  neighbour  ;  for  he  that  loveth  not  his 
brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God  whom  he 
hath  not  seen  ?§  The  doctrine  of  Peter  the  Lombard  is  the 
doctrine  of  St.  Augustine  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine 
is  evidently  that  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John. 

But  this  work  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts  is  a  progressive 
work.  "  That  renovation,"  says  St.  Augustine,  "  is  not  pro- 
duced in  one  moment  of  conversion,  as  the  renovation  in 
baptism,  which,  in  one  moment  is  produced  by  the  remission 
of  all  our  sins.— It  is  one  thing  to  be  free  from  fevers,  another 
to  c'row  strong  from  the  weakness  which  fevers  have  occa- 
sioned.  It  is  one  thing  to  draw  forth  the  weapon  infixed  in 
our  body,  another  to  cure  the  wound  it  has  made. — This  is 

»  Lib.  viii.  c.  vii.  10.  t  C  viii.  12. 

\  The  text  of  the  sentences  is  "  amplectere  proximum  ;    but  the  Bene- 
dictine editors  of  St.  Augustine,  whom  1  follow,  read  "  amplectere  Deum. 
§  1  John  iv.  20. 


. 


.1 


I 


\ 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUB9TANTIATI0N.        181 


done  by  daily  approaches.  *  Tiiough  our  outward  man  perish, 
yet  the  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day.'*  In  the  recog- 
nition of  God,  that  is,  in  true  righteousness  and  true  holiness, 
he  who  is  renewed  from  day  to  day,  transfers  love  from 
things  temporal  to  things  eternal,  from  things  visible  to  things 
clearly  understood,  from  things  carnal  to  things  spiritual. 
But  all  this  is  done  by  divine  assistance  ;  for  it  is  the  sen- 
tence of  God,  <  Without  me,  ye  can  do  nothing.'  By  this  ad- 
vancement and  approach,  when  the  last  day  of  this* life  shall 
overtake  him  who  holds  the  faith  of  the  Mediator,  he  shall 
be  brought  to  that  God  whom  he  worshippeth,  and  being  per- 
fected by  him,  shall  be  received  by  holy  Angels  at  the  end 
of  the  world,  with  a  body  incorruptible,  not  to  pain,  but  to 
glory.  In  this  image,  the  likeness  of  God  will  then  be  per- 
fected, when  the  vision  of  God  shall  be  perfect."f 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  presence  ;  a  presence  of 
Him  who  is  the  fountain  of  Love,  and  who  operates  continu- 
ally on  us  by  the  means  which  Christ  himself  appointed. 
By  his  commission,  the  Apostolic  ministry,  to  be  continued  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  is  called,  and  sanctified,  and  separated 
to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  preach  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  opens  the  deaf  ear,  and  gives  sight  to 
the  blinded  heart.  They  administer  holy  Baptism,  and  the 
Omnipotent  Spirit  washes  the  soul  with  the  blood  of  Christ. 
They  consecrate  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
makes  it,  to  every  penitent  and  faithful  heart,  what  Christ,  at 
the  institution  of  the  Sacrament  pronounced  it  to  be,  the  body 
and  the  blood  of  Him  who  died  for  the  forgiveness  of  our 
sins.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,"  says  St.  Paul, 
"  is  it  not  the  communion  (the  communication  and  the  joint 
participation)  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  V^X 
Hence,  Archbishop  Cranmer  says,  excellently  well:  "Al- 
though, in  the  truth  of  his  human  nature,  Christ  be  in  heaven, 
and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father,  yet  whoso- 
ever eateth  of  that  bread  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  institution  and  ordinance,  is  assured  of  Christ's 

*  2  Cor.  iv.  16. 

t  S.  Aug.  de  Trinitate,  lib.  xiv.  cap,  xvii.  23,  ed.  Bened.  Antuerp. 
torn.  ix.  682.  X  1  Cor.  x.  16. 

9 


182 


EEPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


!} 


own  promise  and  testament,  that  he  is  a  member  of  his  body, 
and  receiveth  the  benefits  of  his  passion  which  he  suffered 
for  us  upon  the  cross.  And  likewise,  he  that  drinketh  of  that 
holy  cup  in  that  supper  of  the  Lord,  according  to  Christ's 
institution,  is  certified  by  Christ's  legacy  and  testament  that 
he  is  made  partaker  of  the  blood  of  Christ  which  was  shed 
for  us."  And  again  :  "  Christ  ordained  the  Sacrament  to  move 
and  stir  all  men  to  friendship,  love,  and  concord,  and  to  put 
away  all  hatred,  variance,  and  discord,  and  to  testify  a 
brotherly  and  unfeigned  love  between  all  them  that  be  the 
members  of  Christ ;  but  the  Devil,  the  enemy  of  Christ  and 
of  all  his  members,  hath  so  craftily  juggled  herein,  that  of 
nothing  riseth  so  much  contention  as  of  this  holy  Sacra- 
ment."* 

As,  therefore,  God  the  Holy  Ghost  is  essentially  love, 
and  is  sent  to  dwell  in  the  Church  for  the  purpose  of  diffus- 
ing  this  love  in  all  hearts,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per  is  constantly  administered  by  Him,  as  a  most  effectual 
means  of  increasing  and  strengthening  the  love  which  He 
sheds  abroad  in  our  souls.  And  although  his  ministers  can- 
not  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  men's  hearts,  and 
may  therefore  administer  to  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  good, 
yet  the  Holy  Ghost  searcheth  the  hearts  and  reins,  and  He 
only  it  is  who  can  make  the  outward  elements  the  means  of 
inward  and  spiritual  grace.  *'  If  these  three,''  says  Bishop 
Andrewes,  "  Prayer,  the  Word,  the  Sacraments,  be  every 
one  of  them  as  an  Artery  to  convey  the  Spirit  into  us,  well 
may  we  hope,  if  we  use  them  all  three,  we  shall  be  in  a  good 
way  to  speed  of  our  desires.  For,  many  times  we  misse 
when  we  use  this  one  or  that  one  alone  ;  where,  it  may  well 
be,  God  hath  appointed  to  give  it  us  by  neither,  but  by  the 
third.  It  is  not  for  us  to  limit  or  appoint  Him  how  or  by 
what  way  He  shall  come  unto  us  and  visit  us ;  but  to  offer 
up  our  obedience  in  using  them  all ;  and  using  them  all.  He 
will  not  faile  but  come  unto  us,  either  as  a  wind  to  allay  in 
us  some  unnaturall  heat,  of  some  distempered  desire  in  us  to 
evill ;  or  as  a  jire  to  kindle  in  us  some  hike -warm  or  some 
key-cold  affection  in  us  to  good  :  come  unto  us,  either  as  tiie 
Spirit  of  Truthy  lightning  us  with  some  new  knowledge^  or  as 

*  Jenkyns'  Cranraer,  vol.  ii.  pp.  295, 297. 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       183 


the  Spirit  of  Holinesse,  reviving  in  us  some  virtue  or  grace  ; 
or  as  the  Comforter,  ministring  to  us  some  inward  contentment 
or  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  or  in  one  or  other  certainly  He 
will  come.  For  a  compleat  obedience  on  our  part  in  the  use 
of  all  His  prescribed  means,  never  did  goe  away  empty  from 
Him,  or  without  a  blessing  :  never  did,  nor  never  shall."* 

When  therefore  Dr.  Milner  affirms,f  "that  the  first  and 
main  question  to  be  settled  between  Catholics  and  Church 
Protestants,"  as  he  chooses  to  designate  the  Roman  and  En- 
glish Communions,  "  is  concerning  the  real  or fgurative  pres- 
ence of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,"  he  entirely  misleads  his 
readers.     His  subsequent  attempt  to  fasten  on  the  English 
Communion    the  charge  of  ^^  disguising  their  real  tenets,^' 
because  they  maintain  that  "  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
verily  and  indeed  (vere  et  realiter)  taken  and  received  by  the 
faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper,"  is  in  the  highest  degree  dis- 
ingenuous  and  dishonest.  What  motive  have  they  for  disguise  ? 
The  Catechism  and  the  Article  of  1552  and  1562,  speak  but 
one  language.    To  such  as  receive  rightly,  worthily  and  with 
faith,^^  says  the  Article — "  taken  and  received  by  the  faith- 
ful,'^ says  the  Catechism.     The  language  is  discreet  and 
guarded.  The  Holy  Ghost,  the  searcher  of  the  heart  of  man, 
makes  the  Sacrament,  "the  most  blessed  body  and  blood,"  or 
conveys  "  all  the  benefits  of  Christ's  passion"  to  the  soul  of 
the  faithful  recipient.    They  who  lead  wicked  lives,  and  yet 
lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  receiving  the  outward  elements, 
eat  and  drink  to  their  own  condemnation.    What  a  powerful 
mean  of  grace  is  it  to  the  one  !    What  a  fearful  anticipation 
of  the  last  judgement  is  it  to  the  other! 

The  confusion  and  inconsistency  and  craft  which  Dr. 
Milner  so  liberally  attributes  to  the  Church  of  England, 
exists  nowhere  but  in  making  the  Real  presence  inseparable 
from  Transubstantiation.  As  usual  he  quotes  Burnet,  p.  ii. 
6,  1,  which,  in  the  edition  before  me,  occupies  172  folio 
pages  (!)  as  his  authority  for  the  single  assertion,  that  the  first 
communion  service  clearly  expresses  the  Real  presence,  and 
that  'the  whole  body  of  Christ  is  received  under  each  parti- 
cle of  the  Sacrament.'  1  have  taken  the  pains  to  track  him, 
and  find  that  he  has  misrepresented  Burnet.     The  historian 

*  Ninety-six  Sermons,  Lond.  1G31,  fol.  p.  607.        t  Letter  XXXVII. 


r 


i 


184 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S    END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


merely  says: — The  Bread  was  to  be  such  as  had  been  for- 
merly used,  and  every  one  of  the  Breads  so  consecrated  was 
to  be  broken  in  two  or  more  pieces ;  and  the  people  were  to 
be  taught  that  there  was  no  difference  in  the  quantity  they 
received,  whether  it  were  small  or  great,  but  that  in  each  of 
them,  they  received  the  whole  body  of  Christ."*  Before 
the  Reformation,  the  wafer  was  put  whole  into  the  mouth  of 
the  recipient,  the  priest  having  broken  only  one  during  the 
Consecration.  Now  it  was  ordered  to  break  "  every  one" 
and  the  people  were  to  be  informed  that  the  quantity  of  out- 
ward element,  made  no  difference  as  to  the  reality  or  efficacy 
of  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  as  applied  to  the  souls  of 
the  faithful  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such  is  our 
doctrine  now  as  it  was  then  ;  but  under  the  transmuting 
power  of  Dr.  Milner,  all  authors,  ancient  and  modern, 
speak  just  what  he  wishes  them  to  say.  "Afterwards,  when 
the  Calvinistic  party  prevailed,"  says  he,  "  the  29th  of  the 
Forty-two  Articles  of  religion  drawn  up  by  the  same  prelates, 
and  published  in  1552,  expressly  denies  the  Real  presence, 
and  the  very  possibility  of  Christ's  being  in  the  Eucharist,  since 
he  has  ascended  up  to  Heaven."  Marvellous  inconsistency 
to  deny  in  1552  what  they  had  asserted  in  1548  !  But  softly, 
good  sir!  The  denial  in  1552,  was  not  of  the  Real  presence , 
but  of  Transuhstantiation.  Aye,  but  "  ten  years  afterwards," 
says  our  author,  Elizabeth  being  on  the  throne,  who  patron- 
ized the  Real  presence — this  declaration  against  the  Real  and 
Corporal  presence  of  Christ  was  left  out,  &c."  Real  and 
Corporal  presence !  See  how  slyly  the  word  corporal  is  here 
introduced  to  make  his  readers  confound  corporal  and  real, 
and  thus  think  tiiat  Queen  Elizabeth  secretly  believed  in 
Transuhstantiation  !  That  wise  princess  believed  in  the  Real 
presence,  though  not  in  the  Corporal ;  but  she  knew  that 
many  of  her  subjects  believed,  if  not  in  Transuhstantiation, 
at  least  in  Consubstantiation,  and  she  therefore  was  willing 
to  remove  all  stumbling-blocks  in  their  way,  and  thus  if  pos- 
sible prevent  schism.  The  subsequent  changes  were  made 
when  the  preverse  conduct  of  the  Popes  had  already  created 
a  schism,  and  the  intrigues  of  their  secret  emissaries,  dis- 
guised as  Puritans,  conspired  to  ruin  the  English  Reforma- 
tion. 

*  Burnet,  3d  ed.  Dublin,  1731,  vol.  ii.  p.  50. 


OF  THE  REAL  PRESENCE  AND  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.   185 


Dr.  Milner  next  proceeds  to  strengthen  his  charge  of  in- 
consistency, by  adducing  the  celebrated  passage  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  St.  John.  The  Real  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament,  he  affirms,  is  "  manifestly  and  emphatically 
expressed  therein" — taking  Scripture  "  in  its  plain  and  lite- 
ral sense."  Without  entering  into  a  question  which  has  creat- 
ed so  much  controversy,  let  us  admit,  what  Dr.  Milner  so 
confidenlly  affirms ;  and  let  us  admit  it  because  Archbishop 
Cranmer  did  the  same.  In  his  "  Defence  of  the  true  and 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
our  Saviour  Christ;"  a  treatise  dedicated  to  King  Edward 
VI.,  in  1553,  a  year  after  the  time  when,  according  to  Dr. 
Milner,  he  denied  the  Real  presence,  he  says  :  "  As  the  body 
liveth  by  meat  and  drink,  and  thereby  increaseth  and  groweth 
from  a  young  babe  unto  a  perfect  man,  (which  thing  expe- 
rience teacheth  us,)  so  the  Soul  liveth  by  Christ  himself,  by 
pure  faith,  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood.  And  this 
Christ  himself  teaches  us  in  the  sixth  of  John,  saying,  Verily^ 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  jlesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  no  Ife  in  you.  Whoso 
eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life  ;  and 
I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  very 
meat,  and  my  blood  is  very  drink.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh, 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the 
living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father  ;  even  so, 
he  that  eateth  me  shall  live  by  me.  And  this  St.  Paul  confessed 
of  himself,  saying.  That  I  have  life,  I  have  it  by  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God,  And  now  it  is  not  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me."* 

All  this  is  perfectly  intelligible,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  makes 
the  outward  elements  convey  the  benefits  of  our  Lord's 
passion^to'every  soul  whom  He  sees  to  have  a  true,  lively,  and 
productive  faith.  For,  as  the  Archbishop  proceeds  to  say  in 
his  sixteenth  chapter,  "  This  spiritual  meat  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood,  is  not  received  in  the  mouth  and  digested  in  the 
stomach,  (as  corporal  meats  and  drinks  commonly  be,)  but 
it  is  received  with  a  pure  heart  and  a  sincere  faith.  And 
the  true  eating  and  drinking  of  the  said  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  is  with  a  constant  and  a  lively  faith  to  believe,  that 


*  Jenkyns*  Cranmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  301. 


186 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's  END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Christ  gave  his  bod)'  and  shed  his  blood  upon  the  cross  for  us, 
that  he  is  our  head,  and  we  his  members,  and  flesh  of  his 
flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bone,  having  him  dwelling  in  us  and 
we  in  him.  And  herein  standeth  the  whole  eflect  and 
strength  of  this  Sacrament.  And  this  faith  God  worketh 
inwardly  in  our  hearts  hy  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  confirmeth  the 
same  outwardly  to  our  ear?,  by  hearing  of  his  word,  and  to 
our  other  senses,  by  eating  and  drinking  of  the  Sacramental 
bread  and  wine  in  his  Holy  Supper."* 

So  far  then  is  this  passage,  in  its  plain  and  liternal  mean- 
ing from  upholding  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  that 
it  is  directly  opposed  to  it.     For  our  Lord,   perceiving  that 
some  of  his  disciples  murmured  at  what  he  had  said,  vouch- 
safed to  add,    "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the   Son  of  Man 
ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ? — ascend  in  his  proper  body 
into   heaven?     It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth;"  the  Spirit 
operating  upon  the  Soul.     "  The  flesh  profiteth  nothing  ; 
the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  Spirit,   and  they 
are  Life.'^f     The  disciples  to  whom  our  Lord  addressed  these 
words,  knew  no  more  what  his  Ascension  meant,  than  they 
knew  how  he  would   give   them  his  flesh  to  eat,  or  his  blood 
to  drink.     Subsequent  events  unfolded   his  meaning.     His 
Ascension  bodily,   proved  to  the  faithful,  in  the  language 
objected  to  by  Dr.  Milner,   "  as  the  truth  of  man's   nature 
requireth,  that  the  body  of  one  and  the  self-same  man,  cannot 
be  at  one  time  in  divers  places,  but  must  needs  be  in  some 
one   certain   place;"    and,   "therefore,  the   body  of  Christ 
cannot  be  present  at  one  time  in  many  and  divers  places."J 
The  flesh  profiteth  nothing.     Such  carnal  eating,  even   if  it 
were  possible,  would  not  promote  the  object  for  which  the 
body  of  Christ  was  broken,  and  his  blood  poured  out.     It  is 
the  Spirit  that   quickeneth  or  giveth  life.     The  Holy  Ghost 
conveys  life  to  the  faithful  soul.     My  words  are  Spirit  and 
Life.     They   are  to  be  understood  in   a  spiritual,  not  in  a 
gross  and  carnal  sense.     Therefore  "  Transubstantiation,  or 
the  change  of  the  substance  of  the   bread  and  wine  into  the 
substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  cannot  be  proved  by  " 
this,  or  by  any  other  passage  of  "  holy  writ."§     The  Real 

*  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  ut  sup.  p.  306.  t  St.  John  vi.  G2,  63. 

t  Art.  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  1552.  Sparrow,  p.  49.       §  Art.  ut  sup. 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       187 


presence  may   be  proved  by  it,  but  not  the  Corporal  pres- 


ence. 


All  the  quotations  which  Dr.  Milner  produces,  or  to 
which  he  refers,  from  St.  Ignatius  in  the  Apostolic  age,  to  the 
"  illustrious  doctors  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  ages,"  prove  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  "  Real  presence  "  is  primitive  and  Catho- 
lic, but  do  not  prove  that  "  Transubstantiation  "  is  so.  St. 
Ignatius  was  arguing  against  the  Docetse,  who  maintained 
that  the  body  of  our  Lord  was  a  phantom,  not  a  reality. 
This  tenet  led  them  to  forsake  the  Eucharist  and  the  prayers 
of  the  Church.  "  They  abstain,"  says  the  holy  martyr, 
**  from  the  Eucharist  and  prayer,  that  they  may  not  confess 
the  Eucharist  to  be  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
which  having  suffered  for  our  sins,  the  Father  in  his  good- 
ness, hath  raised  up."*  "  They  do  not  admit  of  eucharists 
and  ohlations  because  they  do  not  believe  the  Eucharist  to  be 
the  flesh,"  &c.,  says  Dr.  Milner's  translation  !  But  Dr.  Mil- 
ner's  acquaintance  with  Greek  seems  to  have  been  very 
slender.  The  real  preseiice  of  Christ's  human  nature,  as 
crucified  for  us,  and  raised  from  the  dead,  as  it  is  applied  to 
our  souls,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  blessed  Sacrament,  the 
Doceta3  could  not  believe,  because  they  did  not  believe  in 
that  human  nature.  We  may  infer  from  this  passage  that  St. 
Ignatius  understood  St.  John  vi.  51,  "the  bread  that  I  will 
give  is  my  flesh,"  as  descriptive  of  the  Eucharist,  but  we 
are  as  far  ofl*  as  ever  from  any  proof  that  he  believed  in 
Transubstantiation. 

The  homilies  of  Origen  upon  Leviticus,  from  which  Dr. 
Milner  next  quotes,  have  come  down  to  us  only  in  a  Latin 
translation,  with  which  language  the  learned  polemic  was 
more  familiar  than  with  Greek.  He  has  made  a  small  mis- 
take, however,  in  quoting  the  words  of  a  Homily  uponfNum- 
bers,  as  a  Homily  upon  Leviticus.  But  let  that  pass.  I 
must  give  ihe  words  of  Ruffinus,  the  translator  of  Origen,  in 
the  margin,  to  show  the  liberties  which  Dr.  Milner  takes  even 
with   Latin  authors.*     "  Manna  was  formerly  given  as  a 


*  S.  Ign.  ad  Smyrn.  sec.  7. 

t  "  Tunc  ill  aenigmate  erat  manna  cibus,  nunc  autem  in  specie  care 
Verbi  Dei  est  verus  cibus,  sicut  et  ipse  dicit,  (St.  John  vi.  56,)  quia  caro 
inea  vere  est  cibus,  et  sanguis  meus  vere  est  potus."  Orig.  in  Numeros 
Honi.  VII.  Ed.  Bened.  torn.  ii.  p.  290,  A. 


188     BEPLY  TO  milker's  END  OF  CONTROVEKSY. 


figure ;"  translates  Dr.  Milner,  "  but  now  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  the  Son  of  God  \s  speciJlcaUi/  ^iven  and  is  real  food." 
Dear  Reader !  I  love  always  to  see  what  an  author  means 
to  show ;  and  for  that  reason  I  love  to  connect  my  quota- 
tions with  the  context.  Did  Dr.  Milner  do  this  ?  Or  did  he 
quote  the  naked  sentence  from  his  scrap-book  ?  You  shall 
see. 

Origen,  in  his  fanciful  way  of  interpretation,  is  comment- 
ing upon  the  mutiny  of  Aaron   and  Miriam,  on  account  of 
the  Ethiopian  woman  whom  Moses  had  married,  as  recorded 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Numbers.     Miriam,  says  Origen, 
means  the  Synagogue  ;  Aaron,  the   Priests  and  Pharisees ; 
the  Ethiopian  woman,  the  Gentile  Church.    Moses,  thespir- 
itual  law,  marries  her,  and   is  therefore  spoken  against  by 
the  ancient  people  and  the  Levitical  priesthood.     God  con- 
firms the  marriage   with  the  Ethiopian,  and  inflicts  the   lep- 
rosy of  sin  upon  Miriam;  a  leprosy,  however,  which  will  be 
removed  when   a  week  of  the  world  is  completed,   and  the 
fulness  of  the  gentiles  being  come  in,  all  Israel  shall  be  sav- 
ed.    All  these  things,  as  the  Apostle  says,  happened  unto 
them  in  a  figure,  and  arc  written  for  our  admonition.     Not 
only   the  Jews  but  the  heretics  who  do  not  receive  the   law 
and  the  prophets,  detract  from  Moses.     So  also  members  of 
the  Church,  who  detract  from  their  brethren,  and  speak  evil 
of  their   neighbours,  and  in   my  (Origen's)  opinion,  every 
one  who   badly  understands  the  writings  of  Moses,  and  re- 
ceives the  spiritual  law  in   a  carnal  sense.     But  Moses  is 
never    so    much    praised  by  God,  as   when    he    is    spoken 
against  by  men.      Hear  what  the  Holy  Ghost  says  in  praise 
of  Moses— and  then  he  quotes  Numb.  xii.   5-io.     Before 
Moses  married  the  Ethiopian,  it  is  not  written  that  God  spak(3 
to  him  «  in  specie  "  (which  Dr.  Milner  translates  spccificalhj) 
and  not  "  in  anigmate  "  (which  Dr.  Milner  translates,  as  a 
figure).     The  allusion  is  to  the  eighth  verse   thus   rendered 
in  the  Douay  Bible,  "  for  mouth  to  mouth  I  speake  to  him  : 
and  plainly  and  not   by  riddels  and  figures  doth  he  see  the 
Lord."     Our   translation  is  ''apparently  and  not  in   dark 
speeches  y"  the  Vulgate,  ''jmlam  ct  non  per  jenigmata  et  fig- 
uras  ;"  Ruflinus  "  in  specie  et  non  ainigmate."     Origen  the'n 
proceeds :  "  It  is  only  when  Moses  comes  to  us  and  fs  joined 
to  this  our  Ethiopian,  that  the  law  of  God  is  no  lon<Ter  in 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       189 

figures  and  images  as  before,  but  is  fulfilled  plainly  and 
truly  '  in  ipsa  specie  veritatis,'  in  the  form  itself  of  truth." 
And  then  to  show  the  diflTerence  between  the  form  of  truth, 
and  the  form  of  figures  and  senigmata,  he  quotes  1  Cor.  x. 
1-4,  ending  with  "  and  that  rock  was  Christ."  "  You  see,"  he 
adds,  "  how  Paul  solves  the  oenigmata  of  the  law  and  teaches 
the  species  of  the  senigmata,  and  says  that  the  Rock  was 
with  Moses  in  aenigma,  before  he  was  joined  to  this  our 
Ethiopian.  Now  Christ  the  rock  is  in  specie  ;  for  now  God 
speaks  mouth  to  mouth  by  the  law.  Before,  baptism  was 
in  cenig?naie  *  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;'  but  now  regen- 
eration is  in  specie,  in  water,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then 
m  ceniginate  was  the  manna  food ;  but  now  in  specie  the 
flesh  of  the  Word  of  God  is  the  true  food,  as  he  himself 
saith,  for  my  flesh  is  truly  food  and  my  blood  is  truly  drink."* 

Now  did  Dr.  Milner  read  his  author,  or  did  he  read  the 
naked  period,  culled  and  laid  up  in  the  treasury  of  his  scrap- 
book  1  A  man  of  his  latinity  should  have  seen  how  Ruflinus 
used  the  phrase  in  specie  to  denote  what  the  Vulgate  means 
by  palam,  openly  or  plainly.  He  should  not,  therefore,  have 
rendered  it  specifically.  All  that  Origen  meant  to  say  was 
that  the  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  and  the  manna 
eaten  in  the  wilderness,  were  adumbrations  of  the  two  Chris- 
tian sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist.  Is  not  this 
passage  then  a  clear  proof  that  Origen  received  the  doctrine 
of  the  Real-presence,  but  not  that  of  Transubstantiation  ?  If 
the  bread  eaten  in  the  wilderness  was  a  figure,  representing 
the  flesh  of  the  Word  of  God,  because  our  Lord  said  that  my 
flesh  is  truly  food,  &;c.,  it  will  be  hard  to  show  that  Origen 
believed  in  the  destruction  of  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Eucharist. 

I  might  thus,  if  it  were  not  for  swelling  my  book,  and 
perhaps  wearying  my  reader's  patience,  proceed  to  comment 
on  all  '•  the  clear  and  beautiful  testimonies  for  the  Catholic 
doctrine"  of  which  Dr.  Milner  speaks  ;  and  which  I  admit 
prove  the  belief  of  the  real-presence,  but  not  the  belief  of 
Transubstantiation,  in  the  ancient  Church.  The  whole  force  of 
Dr.  Milner  consists  in  bringing  loose  translations  of  detached 
and  startling  passages.     Thus  he  selects  from  the  writings 


*  St.  John  vi.  55. 
9* 


190 


UEPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


OF   THE    REAL   PRESENCB   AND   TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       191 


of  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  St.  Ambrose  of  Milan,  two 
arguments  for  the  Real-presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  derived  from  the  divine  power  of 
changing  water  into  wine  at  Cana,  and  the  rod  of  Moses  into 
a  serpent,  and  the  creation  of  the  world  by  Christ  from 
nothing  into  something.  These  are  what  logicians  call 
arguments  a  fortiori.  But  the  same  writers  use  expressions, 
which  Dr.  Milner  has  passed  over  in  silence,  but  which 
incontestably  show  that  tliey  had  no  such  meaning  as  he 
imputes  to  them.  Thus,  if  he  had  read  his  author,  he  would 
have  found  immediately  after  the  passage  he  had  quoted, 
the  following  :  "Christ  conversing  one  day  with  the  Jews, 
said,  *  Unless  ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood  ye  have 
not  life  in  yourselves.'*  They  not  understanding  spiritually 
the  things  spoken,  were  offended  and  went  backward,  sup- 
posing that  they  were  urged  to  cat  his  flesh. "f  So  in  the 
sa?ne  book,  and  at  the  end  of  the  very  same  chapter  which  Dr. 
Milner  quotes  from  St.  Ambrose,  that  ancient  father  says 
thus :  *'  The  Church,  seeing  so  much  grace,  exhorts  her 
children,  &c.  to  hasten  to  the  sacraments."  He  then  quotes 
Solomon's  Song  v.  1,  and  Psalm  xxxiv.  8  ;  after  which  he 
adds :  "  In  that  sacrament  is  Christ,  because  it  is  the  body 
of  Christ.  It  is  not  therefore  corporal  but  spiritual  food. 
Hence  the  apostle  says  of  its  type,  *  Our  fathers  ate  the 
spiritual  meat  and  drank  the  spiritual  drink.':]:  For  the 
body  of  God  is  a  spiritual  body.  The  body  of  Christ  is  the 
body  of  the  divine  Spirit ;  because  the  spirit  is  Ciirist,  as  we 
read  Lament,  iv.  20. §  And  in  the  Epistle  of  Peter  we  have, 
*  Christ  died  for  us.'||  Finally,  that  meat  strengthens  our 
heart,  and  that  drink,  as  the  prophet  relates,  *  maketh  glad 
the  heart  of  man.'  "IT  By  turning  to  the  Psalm  thus  quoted, 
the  reader  will  see  that  the  psalmist,  the  prophet  here  spoken 
of,  speaks  of  wine  as  making  glad  the  heart  of  man.     St. 

•  St.  John  vi.  53. 

t  S.  Cyril.  Hieros.  Catech.  xxii.  4.     Ed.  Bened.  p.  320,  321. 

X  1  Cor.  X.  3,4. 

§  "  Spiritus  ante  faciem  nostram,  Christus  Dominus."  The  Vulgate 
reads  Spiritus  oris  nostri,  and  our  translation,  the  breath  of  our  nostrils. 
It  is  necessary  to  inform  the  English  reader,  as  the  reason  of  these  differ- 
ences, that  in  Hebrew  breath  and  spirit  are  one  word. 

II  1  Pet.  ii.  21.  • 

IT  Psalm  civ.  15.  S.  Ambrosii  de  Mysteriis,  c.  ix.  58.  Ed.  Bened. 
torn.  ii.  col.  341. 


/ 


Ambrose  therefore  in  applying  the  psalmist's  words  to  the 
wine  which  had  become  the  spiritual  hlood  of  Christ,  evidently 
showed,  by  his  silence  on  the  subject,  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  Transubstantiation. 

The  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  before  the 
great  schism  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  was  that  which 
I  have  now  shown  to  be  held  by  the  Churches  of  the  English 
Communion.  The  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  Him  the  ever  blessed 
Trinity,  presides  over  the  Church,  giving  efficacy  to  all  her 
ministrations.  His  presence  it  is,  which  makes  the  outward 
symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  the  spiritual  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  Hence,  in  all  the  ancient  Liturgies,  excepting  the 
Roman  and  Italian,  the  oblation  of  the  elements,  and  the 
invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  most  solemnly  and  ex- 
pressly made  ;*  and  I  can  never  be  sufficiently  thankful, 
that,  in  this  respect,  Archbishop  Cranmer's  first  Communion 
service  has  been  restored  in  the  American  Prayer  Book. 
It  was,  as  I  have  observed,  the  production  of  his  unbiassed 
mind  ;  and  was  changed,  in  imitation  of  that  drawn  up  more 
in  accordance  with  the  Roman  ritual,  by  Hermann  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Cologne.  The  change  was  not  for  the  better.  I 
do  not  say  that  the  omission  of  this  invocation,  in  the  Roman 
and  the  present  English  rituals,  invalidates  the  consecra- 
tion ;  but  I  say,  that  the  first  Communion  Office  of  Cranmer, 
more  completely  avoids  the  error  of  substituting  the  carnal 
and  corporal,  for  the  real  and  spiritual  presence.  It 
acknowledges  that  presence  to  consist,  not  in  flesh  and  blood, 
but  in  the  efficacy  given  to  the  sacramental  elements  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Sec.  2.  Transubstantiation. 

A  most  sound  divine  and  most  judicious  author,  to  whom 
the  American  Church  is  more  indebted  than  she  is  aware,  has 
the  followincr  reflections  upon  our  present  subject  if  "  As 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  holds  the  most  promment 

*  See  Palmer's  Antiquities,  ed.  2,  vol.  ii.  135-140.  ..,„ 

t  Theolocrical  Works  of  the  late  Rev.  John  Skmner :  Aberdeen, 
1809,  vol.  i.l)p.  310,  311.  It  was  by  Mr.  Skinner's  advice  and  influ- 
ence that  the  Scottish  Bishops  finally  resolved  to  consecrate  Bishop  Sea- 
bury. 


192  REPLY   TO   MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


place  in  the  Christian  system,  so  has  it,  in  these  latter  days, 
been  the  subject  of  more  contention,  and  has  occasioned  more 
divisions  and  separations  amonf^  men  professing  themselves 
Christians,  than    any  other  article   of  faith   whatever.     At 
first  received  throughout  the  Church  with  the  utmost  humili- 
ty of  mind  and  soul,  and  celebrated  with  the  most  reverent 
simplicity  of  devotion,  the  holy   eucharist  answered  all  the 
beneficial  purposes  intended  by  it.     By  degrees,  however,  and 
exactly  in  proportion  to  the  advance  made  by  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy  in  Europe,  did   this  divine  institution  become  the 
subject  of  metaphysical  inquiry  ;   until,  instead  of  the  vene- 
rable depth  of  mystery  in  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  had  re- 
corded the  history  of  it,  and  in   which  the  primitive  Church 
had  long  observed  it,  the  Supper  of  our  Lord  came  to  be  ex- 
ammed  and  defined  by  the  newly   introduced  distinctions  of 
genus  and  species,  of  substance  and  accidents,  of  quid  and 
quomodo,  and  such  like  inapplicable  subtleties,  as  the  inven- 
tion of  monastic  idleness,  set  to  work  by  the  assumed  princi- 
ples of  Aristotle,  led  men  to  adopt.     The  issue  was  such  as 
the  Church  of  Rome,  by  its  Sovereign  Authority,   thoucrht  fit 
at  length  to  determine.     By  the  decision  of  the  General  Coun- 
oils  of  Lateran  and  Trent,   the  point  of  faith  was  completely 
settled;  and  the  whole  controversy,  bv  the  fiat  of  Rome   be- 
came compressed,  not  into  a  volume,  not  into  a  senienccl  hut 
into  one  single  newly  coined  vocable— Transvbstantiation,'' 

Peter  of  Blois,  Archdeacon  of  London,  who  flourished 
from  A.  D.  1160  to  1167,  and  died  about  a.  d.  1200,  is  said 
to  have  been  the  first  who  applied  the  term  of  Transubstan- 
tiauon  to  the  Ploly  Eucharist.*  Although,  by  the  Confession 
ofBellarmme  himself,  Paschasius  Radbertus,  who  flourished 
m  A.  D.  844,  was  "the  first  author  who  seriously  and  co- 
piously maintained  the  doctrinc-f  yet  the  word  was  not 
invented  till  more  than  300  years  later.  Both  the  doctrine 
and  the  name  were  of  Latin  origin.  The  Greek  Churcli  never 
Had  m  their  language  so  much  as  a  word   which  could  be 

*  Cave  Hist.  Litt.  torn.  ii.  p.  234 
and  Durand,  Vet.  Script,  torn.  iz.  p.  383,  and  find  it  correct. 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       193 


construed  to  signify  what  the  Council  of  Trent  ascribed  to 
the  word  Transubstantialion  ;  a  word,  nevertheless,  which  in 
the  decree  is  said,  to  be  used  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  ! 
In  the  interval  between  the  invention  of  the  doctrine  and 
the  coinage  of  the  word,  many  and  various  were  the  opinions 
of  the  Latin  divines  on  the  subject.  Of  Ratramnus  or  Ber- 
tram, I  need  not  say  much,  as  his  treatise  "  on  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord"  has  been  lately  published,  and  is  therefore 
accessible  to  my  readers.  He  was  somewhat  older  than  his 
fellow-countryman  Paschasius  Radbertus,  and  both  lived 
together  at  Corbie,  in  the  same  monastery.  He  wrote  at 
the  request  of  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  to  whom  he 
addressed  his  work.  The  object  of  the  Emperor  was  to  set- 
tle his  own  mind  as  to  what  was  the  Catholic  faith,  and  to 
allay  diversities  of  opinion  among  his  subjects  upon  a  ques- 
tion which  had  then  begun  to  be  agitated.  The  choice  of 
Ratramnus  for  this  purpose  by  his  Sovereign,  shows  how 
highly  he  was  estimated  among  his  contemporaries.  Indeed 
the  Abbot  John  Trithemius,  even  so  late  as  towards  the  end 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  speaks  of  him  as  learned  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  equally  esteemed  for  the  purity  of  his  doctrine 
and  of  his  life.  The  opinion  of  Ratramnus,  then,  must  well 
have  outweighed  that  of  Paschasius. 

After  a  short  and  modest  introduction,  stating  the  subject 
and  occasion  of  his  treatise,  he  proposes  the  question,  and  to 
avoid  ambiguity,  defines  his  terms.  He  admits  that  a  great 
many  persons  had  departed  from  the  Catholic  and  Orthodox 
faith  concerning  this  Sacred  Mystery ;  for  which  reason  he 
proceeds  to  support  that  faith,  by  the  authority  of  Scripture, 
the  light  of  reason,  the  testimony  of  the  senses,  the  doctrine 
of  the  most  distinguished  fathers,  and  by  the  practice  and 
express  language  of  the  ritual  as  used  by  the  Church  in  his 
day.  It  would  be  doing  injustice  to  this  excellent  author, 
were  I  to  attempt  an  analysis  of  his  argument  within  the 
short  space  here  allowed  me.  I  must  therefore  select  only  a 
single  extract,  in  which  he  considers  the  analogy  of  the  two 
Sacraments,  earnestly  recommending  to  my  reader  the  pe- 
rusal of  the  whole  treatise. 

'*  Let  us  consider  the  fountain  of  holy  Baptism,  which 
not  undeservedly  is  called  the  fountain  of  life,  because  it 
forms  anew  those  who  descend  into  it,  by  the  newness  of  a 


194 


REPLY  TO  MILNER  S  END  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


OF  THE  REAL  PRESENCE  AND  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.   195 


better  life,  and  grants  to  those  who  were  dead  by  sin,  to  be 
living  unto  righteousness.  Does  it  obtain  this  efficacy  from 
the  element  of  water  which  it  is  seen  to  be  ?  Unless  it  ob- 
tained a  sanctifying  virtue,  it  could  never  wash  away  the 
soil  of  sins ;  and  unless  it  contained  the  vigour  of  life,  it 
could  in  no  wise  be  able  to  give  life  to  the  dead ;  dead  I  mean, 
not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  soul.  Yet  in  that  fountain,  if 
only  what  the  bodily  sense  perceives  be  considered,  it  is  but 
a  fluid  element,  subject  to  corruption,  and  capable  only  of 
cleansing  the  body  But  the  virtue  of  the  Holy  Ghost  comes 
to  it  hy  the  consecration  of  the  priest,  and  it  becomes  effica- 
cious to  wash  not  only  bodies  but  also  souls,  and  to  remove 
spiritual  pollutions  by  a  spiritual  power.  Lo  !  in  one  and 
the  self-same  element  we  behold  two  things  which  seem  to  be 
incompatible  ;  that  which  is  subject  to  corruption,  conveying 
incorruption  ;  and  that  which  has  not  life,  contributing  life. 
It  is  acknowledged,  therefore,  that  there  exists  in  that  foun- 
tain something  which  the  bodily  sense  perceives,  and  which 
is  therefore  mutable  and  corruptible  ;  and  also  something 
which  faith  alone  perceives,  and  which  can  therefore  neither 
be  corrupted  nor  perish.  If  you  ask  what  washes  outwardly, 
it  is  an  element ;  but  if  you  weigh  well  the  internal  cleansing, 
it  is  a  life-giving  virtue,  a  virtue  of  sanctification,  a  virtue 
of  immortality.  In  its  proper  nature  it  is  corruptible  water  ; 
but  in  the  mystery  it  is  a  healing  virtue. 

"So  also  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  if  considered  only 
outwardly,  is  a  creature  subject  to  mutability  and  corruption. 
But  if  you  weigh  well  the  virtue  of  the  mystery,  it  is  life- 
conveying  immortality  to  those  who  partake  of  it.  There- 
fore what  are  perceived,  and  what  are  believed,  are  not  the 
same.  According  as  they  arc  pcrceiccd  they  feed  a  corrup- 
lible  body,  and  are  themselves  corruptible  ;  but  according  as 
they  are  believed  they  feed  the  souls  which  are  to  live  for- 
ever, and  are  in  themselves  immortal."* 

Ratramnus  asserts  that  both  the  sacraments  derive  their 

*  This  translation  is  made  from  the  original  text  in  the  Orthodoxo- 
prapha,  1555,  and  in  two  editions  of  1673  and  1717,  accompanied  by  a 
French  translation  made  from  an  English  translation  by  Hopkins.  This 
English  I  have  never  seen  ;  but  it  is  stated  in  the  Amsterdam  edition,  that 
the  English  translator  published  a  second  edition  of  his  translation  with 
the  original  Latin,  in  1688. 


efficacy  from  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which,  when  the 
outward  elements  are  administered,  applies  to  the  souls  of 
those  who  duly  receive  them,  the  spiritual  blessings  they  are 
intended   to  convey.     The  controversy  evidently  originated 
in  France  ;  and  I  might  go  on  to  speak  of  the  doctrine  of 
Joannes  Scotus  Erigena,  revived  by  Berengarius,  in  the  elev- 
enth century.     His  great  opponent,  Lanfranc,  probably  in- 
troduced the  doctrine  of  the  Carnal  Presence  into  England 
in  the  reign  of  William  the  Conqueror.*     It  had   been  fa- 
voured by  Rome ;  and  at  a  Council  held  by  Pope  Nicholas 
II.  in   1059,  Berenger  was  compelled  to  take   an  oath  of 
retractation.     Still  the  manner  of  the  change  was  left  unde- 
termined.    Even  so  late  as  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century, 
the  celebrated  Master  of  the  Sentences  says,  "  If  it  be  asked 
Of  what  nature  is  that  conversion ;  whether  formal,  or  sub- 
stantial, or  of  some  other  kind  1  I  am  not  able  to  define  it. 
That  it  is  not  formal,  I  acknowledge ;   for  the  species  of  the 
things  which  were  before,  remain[;  namely,  taste  and  weight. 
To  some  it  appears  to  be  substantial,  and  they  say  that  one 
substance  is  thus  converted  into  another,  so  that  the  former 
becomes  essentially  the  latter.     With  this  sense  the  before- 
mentioned  authorities  seem  to  agree.     But  this  opin/on  is 
thus  opposed   by  others :  If  the   substance  of  the   bread  or 
wine,  say  they,  is  converted  substantially  into  the  body  or 
blood  of  Christ,  some  substance  is  daily  made  the  body  or 
blood  of  Christ,  which  before  was  not  so ;  and  to-day  some- 
thing is  the  body  of  Christ  which  was  not  so  yesterday  ;  and 
the    body  of  Christ  is  daily  increased,  and   is    formed   of 
matter  from  which  in  the  conception  it  was  not  made.     To 
such,  this   answer  may  be  returned,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  not  said  to  be  formed  in  the  same  manner  by  the  Celestial 
Word,  for   the  body  itself  formed   in  the  conception  of  the 
virgin,   may  thenceforward   be  formed.      But  because  the 
substance  of  the  bread  or  wine,  which  before  had  not  been 
the  body  or  blood  of  Christ,  is  made  the  body  and  blood  by 
the  Celestial   Word,  and  therefore  the  priests  are  said   to 
make  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  because  by  their  mystery 
(mysterio,  qu.    ministerio,  ministry  ?)  the  substance  of  the 
bread  is  made  the  flesh,  and  the  substance  of  the  wine  the 
blood  of  Christ.     Yet  nothing  is  added  to  the  body  or  blood, 
nor  is  the  body  or  blood  of  Christ  increased.     But  if  you 
*  See  Collier,  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  261,  comp.  with  p.  204. 


i] 


-:j 


196 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


seek  the  manner  in  lohich  that  can  be  done,  I  answer  briejly, 
that  the  mystery  of  the  faith  can  profitably  be  believed,  but 
cannot  profitably  be  investigated.* 

A  few  years  after,  Peter,  of  Blois,  invented  the  word 
Transubstantiation,  a  barbarous  word,  of  which  no  pre- 
vious trace  exists.  Yet  it  was  not  till  the  year  1215,  that 
we  find  it  employed  in  any  Synodical  assembly.  Whether 
it  was  even  sanctioned  by  the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran, 
unless  silence  be  taken  for  consent,  is  more  than  doubtful. 
The  seventy  Chapters  which  form  what  are  called  the  De- 
crees of  that  Council,  were  composed  by  Pope  Innocent  II f., 
and  read  by  him  to  the  Council,  but  not  acted  upon.  No 
discussion  took  place,  nor  was  any  vote  taken.  The  power 
of  the  Pope  had,  since  the  time  of  Hildebrand,  risen  to  the 
extreme  height  of  the  feudal  tenure.  Not  one  of  the  412 
bishops  present  dared  to  open  his  mouth  ;  though,  to  a  great 
part  of  them,  many  of  these  decrees  were  unsatisfactory. 
Certain  it  is,  that  they  were  never  set  forth  by  the  Council, 
but  were  the  mere  dictum  of  the  Pope.f  The  passage  in 
which  the  word  transubstantiation  was  for  the  first  time  thus 
publicly  recognized,  is  as  follows  :  "  There  is  one  universal 
Church  of  the  faithful,  out  of  which  no  one  at  all  is  saved. 
In  this  Jesus  Christ  is  himself  the  priest  and  the  sacrifice; 
whose  body  and  blood  are  truly  contained  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  altar,  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine  which  are 
transubstantiated,  the  bread  into  the  body,  and  the  wine  into 

the  blood,"t  &c. 

From  that  time  forth  the  word  as  well  as  the  doctrine 
came  into  general  use.  Yet  even  then,  distinguished  writers 
among  the  schoolmen,  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  express 
different  opinions  concerning  it.  Thus  the  celebrated  Occam 
[a.  d.  1330]  says,  that  "  There  are  three  opinions  about 
transubstantiation,  of  which  the  first  supposeth  a  conversion 
of  the  sacramental  elements ;  the  second,  the  annihilation  ; 
the  third,  afiirmeth  the  bread  to  be  in  such  manner  transub- 
stantiated into  the  body  of  Christ,  that  it  is  no  way  changed 

*  Pet.  Lombard.  Sentent.  lib.  iv.  diss.  11.  De  Modo  Conversionis. 
Ed.  prin.  Venet.  1477,  fol. 

t  Dupin,  de  antiqua  Ecclesiae  disciplina,  Diss,  vii.3,  4.  Paris,  4to. 
1686,  p.  571.     Collier,  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  xiii.  vol.  i.  p.  425. 

t  Labbe  et  Cossart.  Concilia,  torn.  xi.  p.  1,  col.  143. 


OF    THE    REAL    PRESENCE    AND    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       197 


in  substance,  or  substantially  converted  into  Christ's  body, 
or  doth  cease  to  be,  but  only  that  the  body  of  Christ,  in  every 
part  of  it,  becomes  present  in  every  part  of  the  bread."* 

In  this  surreptitious  manner  did  the  doctrine  and  the 
name  of  Transubstantiation,  creep  into  the  Western  Church  ; 
nor  was  it  ever  truly  and  properly  decreed  by  any  Synodical 
body,  until  the  elt^venth  of  October,  a.  d.  1551,  when  the 
Council  of  Trent,  under  pain  of  anathema,  denounced  every 
one  who  should  deny  it.  And  who  were  they  that  thus 
presumed  to  condemn  the  great  body  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 
Why,  four  Legates,  six  Archbishops,  and  thirty-four  Bishops  ! 
These,  with  a  few  theologians  of  inferior  rank,  dared  lo 
aflirm,  what  the  whole  Church,  for  the  first  eight  hundred 
years  of  its  existence,  had  never  taught.  It  forms  the 
exception  of  their  peculiarity  to  the  present  day.  All  the 
impression  they  have  been  able  to  make,  for  the  last  three 
hundred  years,  upon  the  Oriental  Church,  has  been  by  the 
false  assumption  that  all  who  deny  their  doctrine,  deny  the 
Real-presence.  But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  fact,  that 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Rcal-presence  is  insuperably  opposed 
to  their  doctrine  ;  for  it  confounds  the  distinct  offices  of  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Christ  is  the  advocate  of  his 
Church,  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  ;  the  Holy  Ghost 
the  advocate  of  the  Church  on  earth.  His  perpetual  pre- 
sence, acting  on  the  soul  through  the  ministry  of  the  word 
and  sacraments,  makes  all  things  real.  Religion  has  no 
empty  ceremony.  We  are  made  members  of  Christ's  body 
by  Baptism,  and  we  feed  upon  his  body  and  blood  in  the 
Eucharist.  "  And  therefore,"  says  Archbishop  Cranmer  to 
Bishop  Gardyner,  (what  I  shall  apply  to  Dr.  Milner  and  all 
his  brethren),  *' you  gather  of  my  sayings  unjustly,  that  Christ 
is  indeed  absent ;  for  I  say,  according  to  God's  words  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  old  writers,  that  Christ  is  present  in  his 
sacraments,  as  they  teach  also  that  he  is  present  in  his  word, 
when  he  worketh  mightily  by  the  same  in  the  hearts  of  the 
hearers.  By  which  manner  of  speech  it  is  not  meant  that 
Christ  is  corporally  present  in  the  voice  or  sound  of  the 
speaker,  which  sound  perisheth  as  soon  as  the  words  be 
spoken  ;  but  this  speech  meaneth,  that  he  worketh  with  his 


*  Occam,  as  quoted  by  Perceval,  Roman  Schism,  p.  346. 


'I 


198 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


word,  using  the  voice -of  the  speaker  as  his  instrument  to 
work  by,  as  he  useth  also  his  sacraments,  whereby  he 
worketh,  and  therefore  is  said  to  be  present  in  them."* 


CHAPTER  VII. 


OF    COMMUNION    IN    BOTH    KINDS. 

The  sixth  article  in  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  requires 
the  belief  "that  under  one  kind  only  is  received  the  whole 
and  entire  Christ  and  the  true  sacrament."  It  is  founded  on 
the  proceedings  of  tlie  Council  of  Trent,  in  1551,  of  whicli 
we  have  spoken  in  the  last  two  chapters.  Before  I  proceed 
then  to  notice  what  Dr.  Milner  says  "  of  Communion  under 
one  kind,"  I  tliink  it  necessary  to  state  some  historical  facts, 
which  cannot  be  controverted. 

The  learned  Cassander  admits,  that  for  the  first  thousand 
years,  all,  both  c  ergy  and  laity,  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian 
Church,  received  the  oup  at  the  Communion.  "  The  Mani- 
cha3ans,"  he  says,  "were  the  first  who  in  the  time  of  the 
Popes  Leo  and  Gelasius,  violated  this  universal  and  perpetual 
Rite  of  the  Church;  for  when  they  approached,  as  the  other 
faithful  people  did  in  the  Cliurch,  to  receive  the  Mysteries, 
they  took  the  Lord's  body,  but  abstained  from  the  cup  of  the 
Lord's  blood ;  not  from  any  reverence  for  the  holy  blood, 
but  because,  by  an  impious  superstition,  tiiey  did  not  think 
that  Christ  had  any  real  blood. "f  This  conduct  occasioned 
the  following  decree  of  Gelasius:  "We  have  learned  that 
certain  persons,  having  taken  a  portion  of  the  sacred  body 
only,  abstain  from  the  cup  of  the  sacred  blood.  Let  such, 
without  hesitation  (for  I  know  not  by  what  superstition  they 
are  taught  to  be  thus  scrupulous),  either  receive  the  whole 
sacrament  or  be  repelled  from  the  whole ;  because  the  divi- 
sion of  one  and  the  satne  Mystery  cannot  proceed  without  a 
great  sacrilege.":): 

*  Jenkyns'  Cranmer,  vol.  iii.  p.  33. 

f  De  Sacra  Comm.  sub  utraque  specie.     Opera,  Paris,  fol.    1616,  p. 

t  Gratlan  Deer.  P.  iii.  de  Consecrat.  Dist.  ii.  c.  xii.     Cave  Hist.  Lit 
torn.  i.  A.  D.  492. 


OF   COMMUNION   IN    BOTH   KINDS. 


199 


Such  was  the  decision  of  a  Roman  Pontiff,  at  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century  ;  and  not  only  for  five,  as  Cassander  admits, 
but  even  seveii  hundred  years  more,  as  Cardinal  Bona 
acknowledges,  the  Communion  was  most  certainly  adminis- 
tered to  clergy  and  laity,  to  men  and  women,  in  both  kinds. 
"All  agree''  says  he,  "  as  well  Catholics  as  Sectarians,  nor 
can  any  one  deny  it  who  has  the  slightest  knowledge  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  that  always  and  every  where,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Church  to  the  twelfth  century,  the 
faithful  communicated  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine."* 

Why  then  was  the  practice  discontinued  ?     Not,  as  Bel- 
larmine  says,  because  the   great  increase   of  the   multitude 
-rendered  it  inconvenient,  and   so  it  gradually  ceased,t  but 
for  a  very  different  reason.     No  command  of  any  Bishop 
can   be  alleged.     It  was  the  natural  effect  of  the  newly- 
invented    term    Transubstantiation.      No    repugnance    ex- 
isted to  take  the  body,  because  the  species  of  bread  con- 
tained nothing  in    appearance  of  flesh;    but  wine  turned 
into  blood,  created  a  loathing  in  the  minds  of  ignorant  laymen, 
in  proportion  to  their  implicit  belief;  and  the  idea  of  a  Propi- 
tiatory sacrifice,  encouraged  a  practice  which  favoured  the 
Mediatorial  power  of  the  priesthood.     Certain  it  is,  that  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,   who  flourished  after  the  middle  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  was  the  first  among  the  schoolmen  who 
proposed  the  question  for  dispute,  whether  it  were  lawful  to 
take  the  Body  of  Christ  without  the  Blood  ;  and  he  then   and 
there  mentions  that  it  was  ''the  usage  of  many  Churches  io 
administer  to  the   people  communicating  the  body  of  Christ 
and  not  the  blood."$     Yet  Bonaventura,  his  contemporary, 
says  only,  in  his  comment  on  St.  John  vi.,  that  **  on  account 
of"  the  danger  of  effusion,  it  is   observed  in  some  (not  many) 
Churches,  that  the  priest  alone  may  communicate  in  the  blood, 
and  the  rest  in  the  body."§     From  all  these  expressions,  the 
inference  seems  to  me  to  be  fair,  that  the  practice  was  of 
recent  origin,  and  had  gradually  been  growing  after  the 

*  Bona  Rer.  Liturg.  1.  2,  c.  18,  as  quoted  by  Payne,  Disc,  of  the 
Communion  in  one  kind.     Bp.  Gibson's  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  tit.  xii.  c  3. 

t  Bellarm.  tom.  iii.  lib.  ii.  c.  24,  de  Euch. 

t  Thorn.  Aquin.  Sum.  pars.  3,  qu.  «0.  art.  xii.  cited  in  Bp.  Gibson's 
Tracts,  ut  sup. 

§  Payne,  ut  sup.   Gibson's  Tracts,  ut  sup. 


200 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  and  the  decrees  of  Innocent  III., 
in  A.  D.  1215. 

The  first  opposition  to  this  practice  seems  to  have  been 
made  by  WicklifF.  His  doctrine  concerning  the  Eucharist 
being  connected  with  vigorous  attacks  upon  the  Papal  su- 
premacy, an  order  was  sent  from  Rome,  for  his  apprehen- 
sion, as  having  published  heterodox  opinions,  which  tended 
to  the  subversion  of  the  Church.*  A  German,  or  rather  as 
L'Enfant  states,  a  Bohemian  gentleman,  who  had  been  a  stu- 
dent at  Oxford,having  brought  into  Germany  some  of  VVicklitPs 
writings,  almost  the  whole  country  was  thrown  into  commo- 
tion, and  the  ferment  soon  communicated  itself  to  a  large 
part  of  Bohemia.  The  controversy  concerning  the  denial  of 
the  cup  to  the  laity,  began  at  Prague  about  the  year  1412. 
Peter  of  Dresden,  asked  Jacobel,  a  popular  pastor,  eminent 
for  his  learning  and  sanctity,  how  he  could  administer  in 
one  kind  only,  when  John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist,  the 
beloved  of  Christ,  says  *  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'  Disturbed 
by  this  question,  Jacobel  began  to  search  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Fathers,  and  then  to  teach  publicly  the  necessity  of  com- 
muning in  the  cup,  without  which  no  one  could  be  saved. 
During  these  transactions,  the  Council  of  Constance  was 
convened,  and  in  May,  1415,  the  affairs  of  Bohemia  were 
referred  to  their  consideration. f 

Such  is  the  account  given  by  Cardinal  Piccolomini, 
the  Papal  Legate  in  Bohemia,  and  afterwards  Pope,  under 
the  title  of  Pius  II.  The  Council  assembled  in  1414,  and  at 
its  thirteenth  session,  June  15,  1415,  passed  the  following 
decree  rj  "Whereas  in  some  parts  of  the  world  certain  persons 
rashly  presume  to  assert  that  the  Christian  people  ought  to 
receive  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  under  both 
kinds  of  bread  and  wine  ;  and  do  every  where  communicate 

the  laity,  not  only  in  the  bread  but  also  in  the  wine 

this  present  holy  General  Council  of  Constance,  lawfully 


*  Collier,  vol.  i.  p.  564,  &c.  ad  ann.  1377. 

t  Aeneae  Sylvli  Historia  Bohemica,  c.  35  and  36. 

X  For  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  insert  only  such  parts  as  relate  to  the 
present  subject.  An  English  translation  of  the  whole  is  in  Perceval  on 
the  Roman  Schism,  p.  144. 


OF    COMMUNION    IN    BOTH   KINDS. 


201 


assembled  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  earnestly  desiring  to  protect 
the  safety  of  the  faithful  against  this  error,  after  much  and 
mature  deliberation  had  of  many  who  are  ^^^^^^  both  in 
divine  and  human  law,  declares,  decrees    and  determines, 
ih^iaUhough  Christ  instUuted  this  venerable  ^^^^f^f /'^^ 
supper  and  administered  it  to  His  disciples  under  hoh  kinds 
of  bread  and  wine  ....  and  in  like  manner  that  aUhoughm 
the  pnmitive  Church  this  sacrament  was  received  of  the  Jaith- 
ful  under  both  kinds,  yet  for  th^^^i^mg  any  dangers  and 
scandals,  the  custom  has  reasonably  been  int. |oduced  that  it 
be  received  by  the  officiating  persons  under  both  k mds  but 
by  the  laity  only  under  the  kind  of  bread  :  ^^nce  it  is  to  be 
believed  most  firmly,  and  in  no  wise  to  ^e  ^.^^^f  ^'^^^^^'^^^^ 
whole  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  truly  contained  as  well  un- 
der  the  species  of  bread  as  under  that  of  wine. 

The  Council  then  proceeds  to  decree  the  punishment  to  be 
inflicted,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  by  all  patriarchs 
primates,  archbishops,   bishops,   &c.,  upon  any  rejractory 
fresbyteis,  "  who,  by  communicating  the  people  under  b,th 
kinds  of  bread  and   wine,  have  exhorted  and  taught  that  i 
oucTht  to  be  so  done  ;  and  if  they  return  to  repentance,  let 
them  be  received  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  a  wholesome 
penlce  being  enjoined  them  proportioned  to  their  offence 
But  if  any  of^hem,  with  a  hardened  heart,  shall   refuse  to 
feturn  to  repentance,  they  are  to  be  compelled,  as  heretics, 
by  ecclesiastical  censures,  the  assistance  of  the  secular  arm 
being  called  in  if  necessary."*     Every  one  at  all  versed  m 
history,  knows  what  the  assistance  of  the  secular  arm  means 
—the  tender  mercies  of  fire  and  faggot. 

Far  from  quelling,  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance  increased  the  ardour  for  the  restoration  f  t^e  Cup  to 
the  Laity.  The  Bohemians  took  up  arms  in  defence  of  their 
ChrMan  liberties  ;  and  were  so  successful  that  they  extorted 
from  the  Council  of  Basel  a  reluctant  permission  to  receive 
Ihe  communion  in  both  kinds.  The  decree  was  passed  De- 
cember 23d,  1437,  and  its  language  is  so  ^^emarkaole  that  it 
seems  to  me  important  to  place  it  before  the  reader  in  con- 
trast with  the  proceedings  at  Constance.  "  The  Holy  Coun- 
dl  General  of  Basel  (or  Basle),  lawfully  assembled  in  the 

*  Labbe  et  Cossart.  Concil.  torn.  xii.  col.  100,  101. 


202 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Holy  Ghost,  representing  the  Universal  Church,  for  perpetual 
memory  of  the  fact  :"~Then,  after  a  preamble  setting  forth 
their  object  and  motive,  and  the  diligence  with  which  they 
had  long  searched  the  divine  Scriptures,  the  sacred  Canons, 
and  the  doctrines  delivered  by  the  holy  Fathers  and  Doctors, 
they  proceed,  after  due  consideration  of  all  thincrg  pertaining, 
to  decree  and  declare :  -  That  the  faithful   laily,  or  clerify 
communicating  but  not  consecrating,  are  not  bound  by  the 
J^ord  s  precept,  to  receive  under  each  kind,  that  is  of  bread  and 
wine,  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.     But  the  Church 
which  is  governed  by  the  Spirit  of  truth  remaining  with  her 
lor  ever,  and  Christ  who  remains   with  her,  as  the  divine 
fecripture  saith,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,  hath  to  order 
iiow  It  may  be  ministered  by  those  who  do  not  consecrate,  as 
shall  seem  expedient,  both  for  the  reverence  of  the  sacrament 
and  the  salvation  of  the  faithful.     Whether,  therefore,  any 
one  do  communicate  under  one  kind,  or  under  both,  accord, 
ing  to  the  ordinance  or  observance  of  the  Church,  it  is  profita- 
pie  to  salvation  unto  those  who  communicate  worthily.     Nor 
IS  It  m  any  wise  doubtful,  that  not  the  flesh  only  under  the 
species  of  bread,  nor  the   blood   only  under  the  species  of 
wine  but  the  whole  Christ  under  either  species  is  entire. 
I  he  laudable  custom  also  of  communicating  the  lay-people 
under  one  kind,  reasonably  introduced  by  the  Church  and 
holy  fathers,  and  hitherto  long  observed  even   by  doctors  of 
the  divine   law,  having  much  knowledge  of  the  holy  Scrip, 
tures  and  Canons,  and  now  of  a  long  time  commended,  is  to 
be  accounted  as  law ;  nor  is  it  lawful  for  any  one  to  reject 
It,  or  without  the  authority  of  the  Church  to  change  it.    Given 
at  Basel,  in  our  solemn  and  public  session,  the  tenth  before 
the   kalends  of  January  (Dec.  23),  in  the   year   from  the 
Lord's  nativity,  1437.''* 

The  dexterity  with  which  this  is  worded  so  as  to  allow 
the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Laity  to  receive  the  Cup,  with- 
out absolutely  nullifying  the  decrees  of  Constance,  or  ^ivinjr 
up  a  point  once  established,  would,  in  worldly  matters,  be 
ridiculous  and  amusing.  In  the  concerns  of  the  Church 
It  moves  our  indignation  and  sorrow.  The  Council  of  Con! 
stance  regards,  as  heretics,  to  be  pursued  even  to  the  stake, 

•  Labbe  et  Cossart.  Concil.  torn.  xii.  col.  600,  601. 


It 


OF    COMMUNION    IN    BOTH   KINDS. 


203 


those  who  maintain  the  necessity  of  communion  in  both  kinds ; 
the  Council  of  Basel,  on  the  contrary,  tolerates,  if  it  does 
not  authorize,  this  communion,  and  so  permits,  indirectly,  what 
had  been  twenty-two  years  before  decreed  to  be  heresy  ! 

We  must  now  proceed  to  the  Council  of  Trent,      ihe 
denial  of  the  Cup  to  the  Laity  was  a  practical  matter  which 
all   could   understand,    and    concerning   which,  there  was, 
therefore,  a  great  and  general   uneasiness.     Consequently, 
the  Emperor  and  other  sovereigns  of  the  Roman  Communion 
were  very  desirous  to  have  it  restored  ;  and  for  this  reason 
especially,  a  safe-conduct,  or,  as  we  should  now  call  it,  a 
passport,  was   urgently  demanded   for  the  Protestants  that 
their  doctors  might  be  heard  on  the  subject,  before  any  de- 
cision  should  be  taken.     But  the  Pope,  and  his  party  in  the 
Council,   did  not,  in  reality,  wish  for  the  presence  ol  the 
Protestants  ;  and  the  latter,  on  account  of  the  treachery  at 
the  Council  of  Constance,  in  the  matter  of  John  Huss  and 
Jerome  of  Prague,  were  naturally  distrustful.      These  con. 
flicting  views  of  the  Imperial  and  Papal  parties  in  the  Coun- 
cil  of  Trent  cannot  be  denied  ;  and  a  proper  consideration  ot 
them  throws  much  light  on  the  proceedings  of  the  thirteenth 
Session.     Fra  Paolo  and  Pallavicini  agree  as  to  the  ten  Arti. 
cles  drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  and  /uingli- 
ans  concerning  the   Eucharist.     The  eighth   and   ninth  ot 

these  were  as  follows  : 

H.  That  it  is  of  divine  right  to  give  the  Communion  even 
to  the  people  and  to  children  under  both  kinds  ;  and  therefore 
that  they  sin  who  force  the  people  to  receive  only  one  kind. 

9  That  there  is  not  contained  under  one  of  the  species 
or  kinds  as  much  as  under  both  ;  nor  does  he  who  communi- 
cates  under  one,  receive  as  much  as  under  both. 

The  Count  de  Montfort,  who  represented  the  Emperor, 
knew  that  if  these  propositions  were  condemned,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  conciliate  the  Protestants  ;  for  which  reason  he 
endeavoured  to  postpone  all  action  upon  them,  and  arrange, 
in  the  mean  time,  the  matter  of  the  safe-conduct.  But  he 
was  defeated,  and  the  discussion  came  on,  without  the  pre- 
sence  of  the  Protestants,  on  the  second  of  September,  1551. 

The  judizments  and  answers  of  the  minor  Theologians 
on  all  the  ten  Articles  were  communicated  to  the  Fathers 
on  the  17th  of  September,  and  on  the  21st  they  began  to 


i 


204  REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


give  their  opinions,  the  Legate  first  declaring  las.  Hetlioucrht 
that  no  definition  should  be  made  on  the  ninth  article,  because 
many  doctors  believed  in  the  inequaUlij  there  expressed,  but  it 
would  not  be  opportune  for  them  to  incline  to  that  opinion,  lest 
ihe  laity  should  be  excited  against  the  clergy  as  being  defraud- 
ed  by  them  of  the  greater  grace  which  is  the  consequence  of 
comnunion  in  both  kinds*  This  prudent  advice  the  Council 
lollowed  ! 

From  difficulties  connected  with  the  tenor  of  the  safe- 
conduct,  the  renewal  of  the  war,  and  the  success  of  the  Pro- 
testants,  on  which  it  is  impossible  here  to  dwell,  the  Council 
was  suspended  early  in  1552,  and  remained  so  for  ten  years 
On  the  6th  of  June,  1562,  the  following  Articles  were  pro-' 
posed  for  examination  : 

1.  Whether  by  divine  command  every  Christian  is 
obliged  to  receive  both  kinds  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eu- 
charist  ? 

2.  Whether  the  reasons,  by  which  the  Catholic  Church 
was  mduced  to  give  the  Communion  to  the  Laity,  and  also  to 
priests  not   celebrating,  under  the  species  of   bread    only 
ought  to  be  so  strictly  retained,  that  the   use  of  the  cup 

J  wu""",^'^^  ^®  permitted  to  any  person  whatsoever? 

3*.  Whether,  in  the  event  of  its  appearing  meet  for  hon- 
est  causes,  in  conformity  with  Christian  charity,  to  concede 
the  use  of  the  Cup  to  any  nation  or  kingdom,  it  should  be 
done  under  some  conditions  ;  and  if  so,  what  ? 

4.  Whether  he  who  uses  this  Sacrament  only  under  one 
kind  receives  any  thing  less  than  he  who  uses  it  under 
both  kinds  ? 

5.  Whether  it  be  necessary  by  the  divine  law  to  ^ive  the 
Jbucharist  to  children  before  they  have  arrived  at  the  a^re  of 
discretion  ?  ^ 

This  last  Article  was  put  in  only  as  a  sort  of  make, 
weight  to  help  out  the  first,  and  the  debate  was  confined 
principally  to  the  second,  third  and  fourth.  To  crive  even 
an  outline  of  this  debate  among  the  minor  TheoWjans  or 
the  l^^athers  of  the  Council,  or  to  expose  the  strata-ems  by 
which  the  several  Sovereigns  in  the  Roman  Communion, 
were  foiled  in  their  attempts  to  restore  the  cup  to  tlie  laity 

*  Pallav.  lib.  xii.  c.  ii.  9. 


OF   COMMUNION    IN    BOTH    KINDS. 


205 


as  a  means  of  quieting  their  subjects,  would  far  exceed  my 
present  limits.  From  the  concordant  opinions  of  the  Theo- 
logians, four  Canons  were  drawn  up  and  proposed  on  the 
23d  of  June,  1562,  in  the  Congregation  of  the  Fathers. 
The  rest  were  indefinitely  postponed,  on  the  plea  of  want  of 
time  for  such  grave  and  important  considerations.  The 
Canons,  according  to  the  Apologist  of  the  Council,  condemn- 
ed all  who  said,  1,  that  the  Communion  under  both  kinds 
was  of  divine  command  ;  2,  that  the  Church  had  erred  in 
forbidding  it  to  the  laity  ;  3,  that  as  much  was  not  received 
under  one  kind  as  under  both,  because  all  is  not  received 
which  Christ  hath  instituted  ;  and  4,  that  it  is  necessary,  or 
of  divine  command,  to  give  the  communion  to  children,  be- 
fore they  arrive  at  the  years  of  discretion."* 

And  now,  dear  reader,  let  us  turn  to  good,  honest,  inno- 
cent Dr.  Milner,  and  see  how  smoothly  he  glides  over  this 
whole  subject.  Passing  by  what  has  already  been  answered, 
about  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  and 
Tradition,  and  Infant  baptism,  let  us  confine  ourselves  and 
him  strictly  to  the  point.  *'  It  is  true  that  our  blessed  Saviour 
instituted  the  holy  Eucharist  under  two  kinds ;"  but,  says 
Dr.  Milner,  "  he  then  made  it  a  Sacrifice  as  well  as  a  Sa- 
crament.^^  And  what  then  ?  Why  with  this  juggle  about 
a  Sacrifice  and  a  Sacrament,  he  makes  out  that  the  priests 
take  it  as  a  sacrifice,  and  must  therefore  take  the  cup,  and 
the  people  take  it  as  a  sacrament,  and  must  therefore  take 
only  the  bread.  Yet  if  it  be  a  Propitiatory  sacrifice,  and 
the  priests  are  so  holy  and  harmless  and  undefiled  that  they 
need  not  offer  for  their  own  sins,  then  they  are  to  partake 
of  the  victim,  and  the  sinners  for  whom  they  offer,  have  no 
right  to  either  kind.  But  if  it  be  a  Sacrifice  of  praise  and 
thanksgiving,  it  is  the  people's  sacrifice  as  well  as  theirs, 
and  the  people  have  a  right  to  eat  and  drink  as  well  as  they. 

*^True  it  is,"  says  Dr.  Milner,  "  that  when  Christ  prom- 
ised this  Sacrament  to  the  faithful  in  general,  he  promised  in 
express  terms  both  his  body  and  his  blood,  John  vi."f  Why 
then,  if  it  be  so  true,  do  you  deny  what  Christ  promised  ? — 
**  He  who  said,   Unless  you  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 


Pallav.  lib.  xvii.  c. 


Vlll.  IX. 


vi.  13,  and  vii.  1  ;    lib.  xviii. 
t  Letter  XXXIX. 

10 


C.  111.  IV.  V.  vu. 


r 


206 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Man  and  drink  his  hhod,  you  shall  not  have  life  in  you,  has 
likewise  said,  If  any  one  shall  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live 
for  ever.''  Did  any  one  ever  hear  of  such  logic  ?  Because 
our  Lord,  when  He  was  speaking  of  the  Manna  which  was  a 
type  of  Him  who  was  the  true  bread  of  life,  spoke  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  eating  that  bread,  was  this  any  reason  for  neglecting 
what  He  afferwards  spoke  of  as  equally  necessary,  the  drink- 
ing of  his  blood  ?  We  do  say,  that  by  so  doing,  "  half  the 
Sacrament  is  suppressed  and  the  laity  are  robbed  of  the  cup 
of  Salvatimi." 

But  "it  is  the  sentiment  of  the  great  lights  of  the  Church, 
St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Austin,  St.  Jerom,  &c.,"  that  St.  Luke 
xxiv.  30,  31  means  the  administration  of  the  IJoly  Commun- 
ion by  our  Lord  to  Cleophas  and  his  companion,  tmder  the 
form  of  bread  aloneJ*^     Where,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  ? — 
These  fathers  often  speak  of  the  bread  as  being  the  body,  and 
the  wine  as  being  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist ;  but  I 
have  yet  to  learn  that  they  speak  of  any  administration  by 
our  Lord  under  the  form  of  bread  alone.     How  very  literal 
is  Dr.    Milner   become  all  at  once  !      St.    Luke  says  that 
our  Lord  "  took  bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  and  gave  to 
them,  and  their  eyes  were  opened  and  they  knew  him." — 
The  text  says  nothing  about  wine,  says  Dr.   Milner,   and 
therefore  there  was  none  !     Then,  we  reply,  it  was  no  Eucha- 
rist.    If  it  was  a  Eucharist,  then  there  must  have  been  wine  ; 
and  our  Lord  when  He  instituted  the  Eucharist,  said  express- 
ly that  He  would  "drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  un- 
til that  day  that"  He  should  '•^  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.''*      Did    Christ    celebrate    the    Eucharist    with     his 
disciples  after  his  resurrection?     Then  Ho  drank  the  fruit 
of  the  vine  new  in  the   kingdom  of  God.     We  are  as  much 
entitled   to  the   benefit  of  Apostolic  tradition,   as  Dr.  Mil- 
ner and  his  brethren.     We  read   that   He  was  seen  of  his 
disciples  after  his  passion  forty  days,  and  that  He  spoke  to 
them  "  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God,"f 
He    therefore    gave    them  instructions    how   to    celebrate 
public  worship,  and  especially  the   Sacraments.     I  see  no 
reason  to  disbelieve  that  He  did  celebrate  the  Communion 
with   his  disciples.     But  as  this  is  not  a  matter  of  faith,  whe- 
ther He  did  or  did  not,  He  probably  directed  them  to  cele- 


»  St.  Mark  xiv.  25. 


t  Acts  i.  3. 


OF   COMMUNION    IN    BOTH   KINDS. 


207 


brate  in  the  morning,  as  He  was  sacrificed  in  the  morning. 
We  infer  this  from  the  universal  practice  of  the  Church  ;  and 
we  therefore  infer,  that  all  the  faithful  received  the  cup.  No, 
says  Dr.  Milner,  in  Acts  ii.  42,  and  xx.  7,  we  read  of  the 
breaking  of  bread  "  without  any  mentioning  of  the  other  spe- 
cies." But  does  it  thence  follow  that  the  other  species  was 
not  there  ?  In  both  these  places,  the  ancient  Syriac  version, 
probably  the  most  ancient  of  all,  reads  "  the  breaking  of  the 
Eucharist ;"  but  this  it  does  not  in  the  passage  where  mention 
is  made  of  our  Lord's  breaking  bread,  St.  Luke  xxiv.  30. 
31.  The  breaking  bread  was  a  symbolic  action,  representing 
that  breaking  of  the  Lord's  body  by  which  his  blood  was 
poured  out.  But  who  would  have  ever  thought  of  such  an 
argument  for  denying  the  cup,  if  arguments  for  it  had  not 
been  rare  ?  All  the  passages  were  alleged  at  the  Council  of 
Trent,  but  produced  no  other  effect  than  to  excite  ridicule 
among  all  who  knew  that  communion  in  one  kind  was  en- 
tirely unknown  to  the  Oriental  Christians.  According  to 
Fra  Paolo,  the  Bishop  of  Lerida  having  maintained  that  since 
the  Council  of  Constance  the  Greeks  had  not  been  forbidden 
to  communicate  in  both  kinds  on  account  of  some  privilege 
which  he  himself  had  seen,  the  President  Du  Ferrier,  one  of 
the  French  Ambassadors,  asked  him  to  state  the  tenor,  the 
time,  and  the  author  of  this  privilege.  Upon  his  making  it 
as  old  as  the  time  of  Pope  Damasus,  the  Ambassador  burst 
into  a  laugh,  knowing  that  a  century  after  that  Pope,  it  was 
accounted  sacrilege  at  Rome  to  abstain  from  the  cup  ;*  that 
the  Roman  order  itself  describes  the  Communion  of  the  Laity 
always  with  the  cup ;  and  that  even  so  late  as  the  year 
1200,  Innocent  III.  makes  mention  that  women  received  the 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  Communion.f 

I  have  already  said  enough  on  1  Cor.  xi.  27,:j:  to  expose 
Dr.  Milner's  hypercriticism.  Granting  him  all  he  wishes 
as  to  the  translation,  it  only  shows  that  the  Corinthians 
received  in  both  kinds,  disorderly,  so  that  they  did  not 
distinguish  the  Communion  from  common  meals,  and  some 
were  hungry  and  others  drunken. 


*  Fra  Paolo  and  the  President  Du  Ferrier  had  reference  here  to  the 
doclrine  of  Pope  Gelasius,  which  has  been  already  laid  before  the  reader, 

p.  198. 

t  Fra  Paolo  St.  lib.  vi.  c.  xxxvi.  with  Courayer's  Note  upon  the  pas- 
eage.  X  Part  I.  p.  68. 


208 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


It  is  a  great  weariness  of  flesh  and  spirit  to  trace  Dr. 
Milner  through  all  his  tortuosities.  He  wants  to  prove,  that 
although  our  Lord  instituted  the  sacrament  under  both  kinds, 
yet  that  *'  the  whole  body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ  equally  subsist  under  each,^'  and  consequently  that  it 
is  a  matter  of  discipline  only  which  of  them  is  to  be  received. 
I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  such  an  idea  never  existed, 
for  at  least  1200  years;  and  yet  he  has  the  hardihood  to 
affirm  that  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  present,  has  firmly  believed  as  he  says.  This 
bold  assertion  may  satisfy  ignorant  or  prejudiced  readers  ; 
but  will  it  satisfy  those  who  require  proof?  With  all  his 
vapouring,  he  brings  not  a  single  passage  from  any  ancient 
author,  though  he  talks  of  such  authors  from  Tertullian  to 
Chrysostom,  and  puts  in  the  margin  some  loose  references 
which  I  defy  any  one  to  find.  But  lei  all  that  he  states  be 
compared  and  sifted,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  he  admits  enough 
to  condemn  himself  and  his  cause.  He  admits,  what  he 
could  not  deny,  that  Popes  Leo  and  Gelasius,  at  the  close  of 
the  fifth  century,  condemned  Communion  in  one  kind.  He 
admits  that  the  Council  of  Constance  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century  first  confirmed  what  Leo  and  Gelasius  had 
condemned. 

I  like  not  to  accuse  Dr.  Milner  of  dishonesty  ;  and  I 
would  make  all  due  allowance  for  those  infirmities  to  wiiich 
even  the  best  of  men  are  subject.  But  I  cannot  pass  by  his 
disingenuous  construction  of  the  Proclamation  of  King  Ed- 
ward VL,  for  which  he  rightly  refers  to  Bishop  Sparrow's 
Collection,  p.  17.  The  King  enacts,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Lords  spiritual  and  temporal  and  Commons  in  Parliament 
assembled,  "  That  the  most  blessed  sacrament  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  should  from  thenceforth  be 
commonly  delivered  and  ministered  unto  all  persons  within 
our  realm  of  England  and  Ireland  and  other  our  dominions, 
under  both  kinds,  that  is  to  say,  of  bread  and  wine,  (except 
necessity  otherways  require),  lest  any  man  fancying  and 
devising  a  sundry  way  by  himself,  in  the  use  of  this  most 
blessed  sacrament  of  unity,  there  might  thereby  arise,  any 
unseemly  and  ungodly  diversity."  The  object  was  to  turn 
the  Mass  into  a  General  Communion,  according  to  the  prim- 
itive practice  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  to  make  every  Chris- 


OF  PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 


209 


tian  feel  the  necessity  of  his  receiving  the  blessed  sacrament 
of  unity  in  one  uniform  manner ;  and  thus,  except  in  cases 
of  absolute  necessity,  to  provide  for  the  general  administra- 
tion and  reception  of  the  elements  by  all  his  subjects  at  the 
parish  churches  every  Lord's  day.  The  exception  did  not 
refer,  as  Dr.  Milner  dreamed,  to  the  two  elements  of  bread 
and  loine,  but  to  reasonable  causes  of  absence,  from  what  was 
deemed  a  common  and  general  duty.  The  old  maxim  that 
necessity  has  no  law,  is  applicable  here ;  and  God  will  not 
mark  as  done  amiss  what  He  in  his  Providence  deprives  men 
of  the  power  of  performing.  This  construction  is  in  perfect 
accordance  whh  that  of  the  historian  whom  Dr.  Milner  quotes, 
contained  in  the  paragraph  preceding  the  proclamation,  and 
in  the  very  page  which  he  quotes,  viz.,  Hey  I  in 's  History 
of  the  Reformation,  p.  58.  With  what  face  then  could  he 
insinuate  that  Communion  without  the  cup  was  thereby  al- 
lowed in  cases  of  necessity,  and  thus  triumph  over  the  incon- 
sisten*cy  of  the  Church  of  England  ?  The  dilemma  is  en- 
tirely of  his  own  devising. 

As  for  reserving  the  consecrated  elements  after  Commu- 
nion, it  is  inconsistent  with  the  very  nature  of  a  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice.  They  are  not  to  be  left  until  the  morning,  but 
must  be  consumed  on  the  day  in  which  they  are  offered.* 
For  this  reason  it  was  that  in  the  Articles  of  the  two  London 
Synods  of  15.52  and  1562,  it  was  commanded  that  they 
should  not  be  kept,  gazed  upon,  and  carried  about ;  and  in 
the  rubric  the  additional  caution  was  inserted  in  the  Scottish 
Liturgy,  and  the  English,  of  1662,  that  the  priest  and  such 
communicants  as  he  should  call  unto  him  should  reverently 
eat  and  drink  all  that  remained.  It  is  the  fulfilment  of  a 
divine  command. 


CHAPTER  VIIL 


ON  PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 

The  limits  assigned  to  this  work  admonish  me  to  be  very 
brief  in  what  I  shall  say  of  Purgatory,  of  the  Invocation  of 

*  Exod.  xii.  10  ;  Levit.  vii.  15. 


210 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Saints,  of  Images  and  Relics,  of  the  Power  of  Indulgences, 
and  of  the  Roman  Supremacy.  These,  with  the  vow  of 
submission  to  all  the  Canons  and  Synodical  Decisions  re- 
ceived by  the  Roman  Communion,  comprise  the  remaining 
points  of  difference  between  them  and  the  Churches  of  the 
English  Communion. 


All  abuses  grow  out  of  acknowledged  truths..  The  doc- 
trine of  Purgatory  was  derived  from  that  of  the  intermediate 
state,  but  is  essentially  different  from  it.  The  one  is  a 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  Ancient  Church  ;  the 
other,  a  modern  invention,  confined  to  the  Roman  Commu- 
nion. 

That  the  souls  of  those  who  depart  out  of  this  world,  do 
not  go  to  the  final  state  of  happiness  or  misery,  must  be  in- 
ferred from  the  words  of  holy  writ.  On  this  awfully  inte- 
resting subject,  there  is,  indeed,  a  mysterious  reserve,  to 
teach  us  reverence  and  humility  ;  but  sufficient  is  said  to 
intimate  that  the  final  condition  of  man,  for  either  bliss  or 
woe,  will  follow  and  noi  precede  the  general  judgment. 

In  the  final  consummation  of  hliss,  the  body  and  the  soul, 
like  two  long  separated,  but  re-united  friends,  will  go  together 
into  the  mansions  of  everlasting  life.  "  No  one,"  said  our 
blessed  Saviour  to  Nicodemus,  "  hath  ascended  up  to  hea- 
ven, but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of 
man  which  is  in  heaven.*'*  "David,"  said  St.  Peter,  "  is 
not  ascended  into  the  heavens. "f  Enoch  and  Elijah  were 
"  translated  that  they  should  not  see  death. "J  But  whither  ? 
Not  into  that  heaven  of  which  our  Saviour  speaks,  and  into 
which  "  no  one  but  himself  hath  ascended."  And  if  neither 
Enoch,  nor  David,  nor  Elijah,  have  ascended,  whither  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  hath  alone  ascended,  can  any  of  the  Patri- 
archs, or  Prophets,  or  Apostles,  or  Martyrs,  have  entered 
into  the  final  habitations  of  the  blessed  ? 

And  as  for  the  final  consummation  of  misery,  even  "  the 
Angels  that  sinned,"  are  only  delivered  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness to  be  reserved  unto  judgment.^ ^^  Cast  down  to  Tartarus, 


OF  PURGATORY  AT^D  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.   211 


•  St.  John  ill.  13. 


t  Acts  ii.  34. 
§  2  Pet.  ii.  4. 


t  Heb.  zX.  5. 


saith  St.  Peter,  where  the  Vulgate  reads  excellently  well,  in 
iartarum  tradidit.  But  this  Tartarus  is  not  the  final  state, 
"  the  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."* 
That  is  called  by  our  Saviour,  Gehenna  or  the  Gehenna  of 
fire  ;'\  and  is  described  diS  following  the  last  judgment. 

The  intermediate  state  is  called  in  the  New  Testament 
Hades  or  the  unseen  ;  and  in  this  it  agrees  with  the  proper 
signification  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  word  Hell ;  a  noun  derived 
from  the  verb  Helan  tegere,  to  hide,  cover,  or  conceal.  The 
following  examples  are  selected  from  many  which  are  given 
by  Home  Tooke,  of  the  verb  and  its  derivatives.  "  Naked 
and  ye  hiliden  me." — "Just  men  shulen  answere,  Whanne- 
seigen  we  thee  nakid,  and  we  hiliden  thee?"  St.  Matt.  xxv. 
SOj^'aS.  "  No  man  ligtinge  a  lanterne  hilith  it  with  a  vessel, 
either  puttith  under  a  bedde,"  &c.  St.  Luke  viii.  16.  *'  No 
thing  is  hilid  which  shall  not  be  shewid,"  &c.  lb.  xii.  2. 
"  Seie  thou  not  in  thin  herte,  who  shal  stie  into  Hevene,  that 
is  to  seie  for  to  lede  doun  Crist  ?  Or  who  shal  go  doun  into 
dcpnesse  or  helle  that  is  for  to  agen  clepe  Crist  fro  the  dede 
spiritis."  Rom.  x.  6.  7.  "  What  hightestthou  ?  I  pray  the 
iiEALE  not  thy  name."  Vis.  of  Pierce  Ploughman,  pass,  21, 
fol.  116,  p.  2,  '  Parde  we  women  can  no  thyngHELE.'  Chau- 
cer, Wife  of  Bathes  Tale,  8fC,  "  Laye  it  in  a  troughe  of 
stone  and  hyll  it  wvth  lede  close  and  juste,"  &c.  Fabian, 
part  vi.  ch.  ccxiii.   "Ray  says  to  "heal,  to  cover,  Sussex, 

as  ...  .    To   HEAL  the  fire.     To  heal  a  house To 

to  hide,  cover.     Hence,  in  the  west,  he  that  covers  a  house 
with  slates  is  called  a  *  healer  or  hellter.'  "f 

In  the  Creed  therefore,  hell  means  the  same  as  Hades; 
and  also  in  the  English  Bible,  wherever  it  is  used  for  that 
word,  or  for  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word  Sheol.  Thus 
the  Psalmist,  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hell,''^ 
which  passage  St.  Peter  expressly  says  was  spoken  prophet- 
ically of  the  Soul  of  Christ.  11  If  the  same  word  had  not  been 
also  used  for  the  Gehenna  of  fire,  we  should  not  have  had 


*  St   Matt  xxv  41. 

t  St.'  Matt.'  V.  22,  29,  30  ;    x.  28  ;  xviii.  9  ;  xxiii.  33.     St.  Mark  ix. 
43,45,47.     St.  Luke  xii.  5. 

X  Diversions  of  Parley,  vol.  ii.  pp.  316-319.     First  Araer.  Ed.  1807. 
§  Ps.  xvi.  10.  II  Acts  ii.  25,27, 30, 31. 


212  REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


that  confusion  which  has  obscured  the  doctrine  of  the  inter, 
mediate  state. 

ih.  ^K  ^^"^  ""*  ^""^  interesting  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 
bo?h  If  r  H  •'''''  -^^'^  contrasted  tlie  worldly  condition  of 
thp  nn!  '"''^''^if  "'"^^  ^^^"^  ^^^^h.     He  represented 

theXf  ^°'T"'§  ^^^  1'^'^  worldly  wenlth  can  bestow ; 
the  other,  as  reduced  to  the   most  miserable  degradation  of 

hid  t r^r'"  ?'"'".  ^'  susceptible.  Yet,  in  Hades  he  who 
had  fared  sumptuously  every  day,  ''  lifting  up  his  eves  bein^r 
in  torments,  seeth  Abraham  afa/ off  and  Laz'arusTn  hfs  bo^ 
som.  The  nch  man  had  feasted  on  earth  ;  but  now  Laz- 
arus  was  feastmg  n  the  most  honoured  condition,  reclining 
on  the   bosom  of  Abraham,  as  the  beloved  disciple  reclined 

tne  Anglo-Saxon   phrase,  that  is  covered  over  or  concealed 
from  human  view  in  the  invisible  region  of  departed  souls 
but  visible  to  each  other,  and  audible  to  each  oTer  so  thaJ 
the  moamngs  of  his  wretched  descendant  were  heard  and 
answered  by  the  Father  of  the  Faithful.      Could  his  inter 
cession  cause  the  mission  of  Lazarus  to  cool  the  tongue  o? 

ADos^^'r^  r  I  ^°  •  ^°^  ^'  ^^'^  ''-  Tar/ar.VvW^rthe 
Apos  ate  Angels  who  were  thrust  down  thither,  and  Lazarus 
was  m  Pararf^^e  whither  our  Lord's  soul  descended  when 
he  expired  upon  the  cross.f  Passage  from  one  to  the  other 
was  impossible.  For  Abra'ham  said^o  the  suffer  n^^wret'ch 
''Between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great ^uJf  fixe d""-  so  h.J 
%  which  would  vassfrom  hence  to %u  .'Z^  tkZr  an 
theyj>assio  us  that  would  come  from  thenceA  However 
compassionate  the  Saints  in  Paradise  may  be,Ly  cinnot 
assist  the  damned  ;  nor  can  a  soul  once  damned,  cTme  from 

ThV./'""  1'^'"  ^P'^'?*"  ^"^'"''^  ^"^^  '^^  P-^-dise  of  God^ 
These  are  the  general  truths,  totally  inconsistent  with  the 
modern  doctrine  of  Purgatory.  There  are  obscure  texts  of 
mysterious  import,  concerning  which  opinions  may  differ  The 
passage  1  Pet.  iii.  18  20  is  on^eofthese^  It  evidemly  Sa  es 
as  Bishop  Horsley  observes,  "some  goin^  ofour  Lord  ^o  a 

tT  r";f !;'"''  ^"  ^^^^  ^'"^^^^^^  «^  TimeCveenThe  burial 
of  his  dead  body,  and  his  rising  to  life  again  on  the  third  day 

•  St.  Luke  :.vi.  19-31  +  gt.  Luke  ^m.  43. 

t  lb.  xvi.  26. 


OF  PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.    213 


after  that  interment."*  But  it  by  no  means  implies  a  de- 
scent into  Tartarus  or  the  place  of  Torment.  "  The  same 
wonderful  scheme  of  humiliation  which  required  that  the  Son 
should  be  conceived,  and  born,  and  put  to  death,  made  it 
equally  necessary  that  his  soul  in  its  intermediate  state, 
should  be  gathered  to  the  souls  of  the  departed  Saints."t 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Dr.  Milner.     He  assumes  that  all  the 
passages  of  Scripture  which   have  been  mentioned  are  so 
many    proofs   of  Purgatory— •' a  middle  state,''    he    says 
"  which  we  call  purgatory.''     Now  what  is  to  be  done  with 
such  a  writer  as  this  ?     If  we  were  to  refuse  to  argue  with 
him,  we  should   do  nothing   more   than  would   be  just  and 
right.     But  then  we   should  endanger  such   persons  as  his 
imagined    correspondents.     They,    unused    to   the   arts   of 
special  pleading,  where  victory  and  not  truth  is  the  object  of 
the   conflict,  might  attribute  our  refusal  to  wron^r  motives 
and  a  sense  of  weakness.     Let  Dr.  Milner,  or  aV  of  his 
applauders,  prove  that  Christ  descended  into    Tartarus,  the 
abode  of  devils  and  reprobate  souls,  and  he  would  not  have 
lost  his    time   or  tried  our   patience.     But  neither  he  nor 
they  have  done,  nor  can  do  so.     Indeed  he  admits  that  it 
was  "  not  the   hell  of  the  damned,''  and  he  calls  Calvin  a 
blasphemer  for  having  asserted  so  horrible  a  thought.     Yet 
he  insmuates  that  •'  the  holy  fathers"  apply  to  the  middle 
state,   whither  Christ    descended,   the  words  of  our  Lord 
Luke  xii.  59  :  ''I  tell  thee  thou  shalt  not  depart  thence  till 
thou  hast  paid  the  very  last  mite."     And  then  he  quotes  in 
the   margin   Tertul.,  St.  Cypr.,  Origen,  St.  Ambrose,  St. 
Jerome,   &c.  !     Can   any  one  who  quotes  in    ihis   manner 
expect  us  to  hunt  through  so  many  folio  volumes,  and   after 
all  our  pains,  as  I  to  my  cost  have  found,  discover  that  he 
has  quoted  wrongly  ?     Tertullian,  who  has  quoted  this  verse, 
in  his  work  against  Marcian,  says  not  a  word  about  Purga- 
tory4     The  Benedictine  editor  of  the  works  of  St.  Cyprian 
gives  a  list  of  the  texts  cited  by  him,  but  this  verse  is  not  in 
It.     Origen,  indeed,  in  his  fanciful  way,  interprets  this  pas- 
sage as  pertaining  to  the  future,  and  not  to  the  present  life  ; 

«  Ilorsley's  Sermons,  Lond.  1824,  vol.  ii.  p.  413. 
t  Bp.  Horsley,  ut  sup.  p.  418. 
t  Tertul.  adv.  Mar.  lib.  iv.  c.  29. 

10* 


214 


REPLY   TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


OF   PURGATORY    AND   PRAYERS   FOR   THE    DEAD.        215 


but  he  interprets  in  a  way  fatal  to  the  cause  of  Purgatory. 
"  Lest  he  hale  thee  to  the  Judge,"  v.  58.  "  Who,  think 
you,"  asksOrigen,  "is  that  Judge  ?  I  know  no  other  Judge 
but  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  it  is  elsewhere  said, 
*  He  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on 
the  left.'  "  The  prison  then  of  which  Origen  speaks,  is  the 
Gehenna  of  fire  after  the  last  judgment.*  lie  believed,  as  is 
well  known,  that  even  the  devil  and  his  angels  were  capable 
of  reformation,  and  might  ultimately  be  released  from  pun- 
ishment. Whether  he  ought  to  have  been  excommunicated  for 
so  absurd  and  gratuitous  an  opinion,  I  do  not  take  upon  me  to 
say ;  but  certainly  his  doubts  as  to  the  eternity  of  future 
punishments  afford  no  argument  as  to  any  penal  infliction, 
excepting  in  the  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
As  for  St.  Ambrose,  and  St.  Jerome,  I  cannot  find  any  pas- 
sage in  which  they  have  given  the  least  intimation  that  could 
justify  Dr.  Milner  in  quoting  them. 

St.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  iii.  13-15,  speaks  of  *' every  man's 
work"  to  be  **  made  manifest ;  for  the  day  shall  declare  it, 
because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire ;  and  the  fire  shall  try 
every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.  .  .  .  If 'any  man's 
work  shall  be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss  ;  but  he  himself 
shall  be  saved  ;  yet  so  as  by  fire."  The  ancient  commen- 
tators are  somewhat  divided  as  to  the  materials  and  work  ; 
but  all  agree  that  by  "the  day,"  is  meant  the  day  of  judg- 
ment ;  and  by  fire,  that  which  will  then  begin  to  try  the 
materials  and  the  work.  Consequently  they  alford  no  sup- 
port for  the  modern  notion  of  a  purgatorial  fire  preceding 
the  day  of  judgment.  For  the  proof  of  this  assertion  I  refer 
to  the  Homily  of  St.  Chrysostom,  and  the  Commentaries  of 
CEcumenius  and  Theophylact.f  I  might  even  refer  to  the 
very  passage  in  Origen  which  Dr.  Milner  alludes  to,  but 
does  not  quote,  to  show  that  he  thought  death  alone,  in  some 
cases,  an  absolution  from  sin,  which  prevented  the  infliction 
at  the  day  of  judgment  of  eternal  fire.j     Every  one  must  see 

♦  Homilia  in  Lucam  XXXV.     Opera,  torn.  iii.  pp.  974,  975. 

t  S.  Chrys.  Op.  ed.  Montfaucon,  torn.  x.  p.  73,  &c.  (Ecumcn. 
Paris,  1631,  torn.  i.  p.  441.     Theophyl.  Venet.  torn.  ii.  p.  138. 

X  "  Absolvitur  ergo  peccatum  per  pcenum  mortis,  nee  superest  aliquid, 
quod  pro  hoc  crimine  judicii  dies  et  pcBiia  aeterni  ignis  inveniai."  Ori- 
gen in  Levit.  Horn.  xiv.     Opera,  ed.  Bened.  torn.  ii.  p.  260. 


\\ 


I! 


' 


that  this  fancy  is  totally  at  variance  with  thai  of  a  purgatorial 
fire  between  death  and  the  judgment. 

St.  Augustine,  I  am  ready  to  admit,  used  language  on 
this  subject  which   led  the  way  to  the  much  more  modern 
notion  of  purgatory,  just  as  his  theory  of  predestination  and 
election  was  the  original  source  from  which  flowed  Luther 
and  Calvin's  doctrine.      He  speaks  of  the   unseen  world  of 
spirits,  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  where  departed 
souls  are  "  kept  in  hidden  receptacles  according  as  every 
one  is  worthy  of  rest  or  pain."     But  here  are  only  the  two, 
not  the   third,  which  was  afterwards   invented.     He   adds, 
"  nor  is  it  to  be  denied  that  the  souls  of  the  defunct  may  be 
relieved  by  the  piety  of  their  living  friends,  when   for  them 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mediator  is  offered,  or  alms  are  bestowed 
in  the  Church."     He  then  observes  that  these  can  be  of  ad- 
vantacre   to   them,   only   according  to   their   conduct  while 
livin^r?     «  Some  are  not  so  good  as  not  to  require  them  after 
death,  and  others  not  so  bad   that  they  cannot  after  death 
be  benefited  by  them.     Among  the  good  there  are  such  as 
do  not  require  them  ;  and   among  the  bad,  some  are  so  bad 
that  when  they  depart  from  this  life  nothing  that  their  friends 
can  do  can  aid  them.     His  idea  seems  to  have  been  that 
even    among   the   damned   during   the  intermediate  period 
there  are  gradations  of  suffering,  as  there  were  in  this  life 
gradations  of  sin  ;  that  the  least  sinful  may  be  benefited  by 
the  intercession  of  the  Mediator,  and  the  prayers  and  alnis 
of  the  faithful,  so  that  their  sufferings  may  be  mitigated. 
On  the  other  hand,  that  there  are  gradations  of  bliss,  even 
amonrr  the  happy  souls  in  paradise,  as  there  had  been  vari- 
ous decrees  of  excellency  here  on  earth,  and  that  these  also 
may  be  raised  to   higher  mansions  of  bliss  at  the  day  ot 
iudament  in  consequence  of  the  constant  acts  of  intercession 
in  the  mean  time  of  Christ  and  his  church.     These  are  of- 
fered for  all  baptized  persons  who  have  departed  this  lite. 
For  the  very  good  (valde  bonis),  they  are  acts  of  thanksgiv- 
injT  ;  for  the  not  very  bad  (non   valde  malis),  they  are  pro- 
pitiations  ;  for  the  very  bad  (valde  malis),  though  of  no  advan^ 
ta^e  to  the  dead,  they  afford  some  consolation  to  the  living. 
To  some  they  are  profitable,  so  far  at  least,  as  to  obtain  a 
full    remission  or. certainty   that  damnation  itself  may  be 
made  more  tolerable.     After  the  Resurrection,  indeed,  the 


> 


216 


REPLY    TO    MILNER's    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


judgment  being  then  universal  and  complete,  the  two  cities, 
the  one  namely  of  Christ,  and  the  other  of  the  devil,  will 
have  their  limits  ;  the  one  of  the  good,  the  other  of  the 
bad  ;  both  the  one  and  the  other,  however,  of  both  angels 
and  men.  The  one,  living  truly  and  happily  in  life  eternal, 
cannot  have  either  will  or  faculty  of  committing  sin ;  the 
other  enduring  unhappily  in  eternal  death  without  the 
power  of  dying.  Both  are  without  end  ;  but  they  in  bliss 
will  be  more  distinguished  one  than  another,  and  they  in 
misery  will  endure,  one  in  more  tolerable  sufferance  than 
another."* 

Now  all  this,  "  though  a  most  undeniable  evidence,"  as 
the  present  Bishop  of  Exeter  has  well  observed,  "in  favour 
of  Sacrifices  of  the  Altar,  and  of  Alms  for  the  Dead,"  is  "a 
strong  testimony  against  the  Roman  doctrine  of  Purgatory, 
.  .  .  .  It  is  plain  that  the  author  contemplated  the  day 
of  Judgment,  as  tiie  time  when  the  dead  would  be  benefited 
by  these  pious  services  offered  for  them  by  their  surviving 
friends."  Speaking  of  the  first  and  second  death  (Rev.  xx. 
I4)j  the  one  precedmg  the  other  following  the  general  Resur- 
rection, St.  Augustine  says,  "  Neither  the  Jifsi,  in  which  the 
soul  is  compelled  to  relinquish  its  body,  nor  the  second^  in 
which  the  soul  is  not  permitted  to  relinquish  its  penal  body, 
^would  have  happened  to  man  if  no  one  had  sinned.  The 
punishment  will  be  most  mild,  of  all  those  who  have  added 
nothing  to  the  sin  which  they  derived  from  their  origin.'* 
He  meant  of  course  unbaptized  infants  or  idiots  dying  with- 
out  actual  sin.  For  baptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  have 
had  original  sin  remitted,  and  being  members  of  Christ's 
body  are  saved,  and  therefore  are  not  liable  even  to  the 
rnildest  punishment,  because  they  have  committed  no  actual 
sin.  "  And  in  the  rest,"  he  continues,  "  who  have  added, 
each  one  will  there  have  his  damnation  the  more  tolerable  in 
proportion  as  he  has  here  had  the  less  iniquity. "f 

The  Bishop  proceeds  to  remark  with  some  severity  upon 

»  S.  Aug.  Enchirid.  cap.  cix.-cxi.  Op.  torn.  vi.  col.  174, 175.  See 
also  De  Civitate  Dei,  lib.  xxi.  cap.  xviii.-xxiv.  torn.  vii.  col.  482-487. 
Ed.  Antuerp. 

t  S.  Aug.  Ench.  ut  sup.  cap.  xciii.  A  part  of  this  passage  is  quoted 
in  a  note  by  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  in  that  part  of  his  Letters  to  Charles 
Butler,  Esq.,  from  which  I  am  now  extracting. 


>  ii 


'v^ 


M 


OF  PQRGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.    217 


Dr.  Milner's  unfairness  and  injustice,  in  most  indecently 
charging  Bishop  Porteus  with  "  three  egregious  falsities," 
because  he  asserted  that  "  Purgatory  in  the  present  Popish 
sense  was  not  heard  of  for  four  hundred  years  after  Christ; 
nor  universally  received  for  one  thousand  years,  nor  in 
almost  any  other  Church  than  that  of  Rome  to  this  day." 
«  The  truth  is,"  said  Dr.  Phillpotts,  "  that  Dr.  Milner  has 
only  engrafted  a  little  of  his  own  peculiar  rhetoric,  on  the 
old  and  established  practice  of  writers  in  your  [the  Roman] 
communion,  who  are  always  anxious  to  couple  Purgatory 
and  Prayer  for  the  Dead  together,  as  if  the  latter  necessarily 
implied  the  former.  But  Prayer  for  the  Dead,  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church,  proceeded  on  very  different  grounds. 
One  of  them,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  mention  presently  ; 
meanwhile  I  content  myself  with  saying,  that,  in  Augustine, 
passages  which  prove  the  practice  of  Prayer  for  the  Dead,  are 
in  general  found  in  company  with  others,  which  negative  a 
belief  in  Purgatory,  never  (as  far  as  I  have  seen,  or  Dr. 
Milner  has  shown)  with  any  which  affirm  it.  In  particular, 
the  tract,  with  which  we  are  at  present  engaged,  is  full  of 
passages  opposite  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  cited  by 
you  [Mr.  Butler]  and  Dr.  Milner.  In  it,  the  very  text* 
of  which  he  [Dr.  M.]  affects  triumphantly  to  ask  '  what 
other  sense  it  can  bear  than  that  which  makes  it  a  proof 
of  Purgatory,  is  explained  in  a  meaning  wholly  uncon- 
nected with  that  tenet.  For  Augustinef  interprets  the  fire 
mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  as  the  fire  of  tribulation  or  persecu- 
tion in  this  life,  ('  est  quidem  iste  ignis  tentatio  tribulationis') 
and  applies  it  as  follows  :  '  They,  whose  foundation  is  Christ, 
though  they  build  not  thereupon,  as  they  ought,  gold,  silver, 
precious  stones,  (that  is  heavenly  affections  and  desires,)  but 
wood,  hay,  stubble,  the  desires  of  things  of  this  world,  over 
which  the  fire  of  tribulation  will  have  power  to  consume  and 
destroy  them  ;  if,  nevertheless,  they  still  keep  the  founda- 
tion,— if,  however  they  may  themselves  burn  with  grief  for 
the  loss  of  the  objects  of  their  earthly  affections,  they  would 

still  rather  lose  them  all,  than  abandon  Christ these  are 

saved,   but  so  as  by  fire.'  "if 

*  1  Cor.  iii.  12-15.  t  Ench.  106, 168. 

t  Dr.  Phillpotts'  Letters  to  Charles  Butler,  Esq.     Ed.  2,  8vo.  Lond. 
1826.  Letter  VI. 


218 


REPLY    TO   MILNER's   END   OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Immediately  after  this  passage  there  is  another,  which, 
indeed,  betrays  an  incipient  approach  to  the  doctrine  of  an 
intermediate  purgatorial  fire ;  and  as  there  are  expressions 
in  it  somewhat  obscure,  1  place  the  whole  in  the  margin,  and 
give  Dr.  Phillpotts'  translation  rather  than  my  own,  of  that 
part  which  verifies  my  assertions.  "  It  is  not  incredible  that 
some  such  thing  as  this  may  take  place  after  this  life  also ; 
and  this  may  be  a  suiject  of  inquiry ,  whether  this  he  so,  or  not. 
It  may  be  founds  or  it  may  not,  that  some  mew,  through  a 
certain  purgatory  fire,  in  proportion  as  they  have  more  or  less 
loved  the  perishing  enjoyments  of  the  world,  are  slower  or 
sooner  in  attaining  salvation."* 

The  doubtful  manner  in  which  St.  Augustine  here  speaks, 
shows  the  novelty  of  the  thought.  It  was  a  mere  opinion, 
advanced  by  him  as  such  ;  and  he  limits  the  operation  to 
those  who  are  not  barren  in  acts  of  charity  and  mercy, 
because  so  much  is  attributed  to  such  acts  by  our  Lord,  in 
his  description  of  the  last  Judgment. f  This  seems  to  me 
fully  to  justify,  and  more  than  justify,  the  assertion  of  Bishop 
Porteus,  that  Purgatory,  as  a  doctrine,  was  not  heard  of  for 
four  hundred  years  after  Christ. 

The  progress  of  this  opinion,  from  theory  to  practice, 
during  the  next  two  hundred  years,  will  best  be  seen  in  the 
writings  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  who  held  the  See  of 
Rome  from  a.  d.  590  to  a.  d.  604.  In  his  dialogues,  if  they 
are  his,  which  some  doubt,  he  has  a  chapter  on  the  question, 
whether  after  death  there  be  a  purgatory  fire  ?  The  very 
question  implies  doubts.  It  is  still  an  opinion  merely,  and  as 
such  the  author  attempts  to  strengthen  it  by  argument. 
"  The  Lord  says  in  the  Gospel,  Walk  while  ye  have  the  light ; 

*  S.  Aug.  Ench.  c.  69.  Tale  aliquid  etiam  posthnnc  vitam  fieri  in- 
credibile  non  est,  et  utrum  ita  sit,  quaeri  potest :  et  aut  inveniri  aut  latere, 
nonnullos  fideles  per  ignem  quemdam  purgatorium,  quanto  magis  min6s- 
ve  bona  pereuntia  dilexerunt,  tanto  tardius  citi6sque  salvari ;  non  tamen 
tales  de  qulbus  dictum  est,  quod  regnum  Dei  non  possidehunt,  nisi  con- 
venienter  peBnitentibus  eadem  crimina  remittantur.  Convenienter  autem 
dici,  ut  steriles  in  eleemosynis  non  sint,  quibus  tantum  tribuet  Scriptura 
divina,  ut  earum  tantummodo  fructum  se  imputatiiram  praenuntiet  Domi- 
nus  dextris,  et  earum  tantummodo  sterilitatem  sinistris,  quando  his  dic- 
turus  est,  Venite  benedicti  Fatris  met,  percipite  regnum  :  illisautem,/<e 
in  ignem  <Bternum." 

t  St.  Matt.  XXV.  31-46. 


OF  PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 


219 


\ 


and  by  the  Prophet  he  also  says.  In  an  acceptable  time  have  I 
listened  to  thee,  and  in  the  day  of  salvation  have  I  heard  thee. 
Which  Paul  the  Apostle  explaining,  saith  :  Behold  now  is  the 
accepted  time  ;  behold  now  is  the  day  of  salvation.  Solomon 
also  says  :  Whatsoever  thy  hand  can  do,  work  instantly  ;  be- 
cause there  shall  be  neither  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge, 
nor  wisdom  (apud  inferos)  in  Hades,  whither  thou  art  hastening, 
David  also  saith.  For  his  mercy  is  (in  seculum)ybr  ever.  From 
all  which  declarations  it  is  clearly  manifest  that  such  as  any 
one  departeth  hence,  such  is  he  in  the  Judgment  presented  (f)  It 
is,  notwithstanding,  to  be  believed,  that  before  the  Judgment 
there  is,  for  certain  slight  faults,  a  purgatory  fire  ;  inasmuch 
as  the  Truth  says,*  *  Whosoever  shall  speak  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in 
this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come.'  In  which  decla- 
tion  it  is  given  to  be  understood  that  there  are  some  faults 
in  this  world  which  can  be  loosed  in  the  world  to  come. 
The  consequent  sense  is  clear,  that  what  is  denied  of  one 
only,  is  conceded  concerning  some.  But  as  I  before  said, 
this  can  be  believed  only  of  small  and  very  slight  sins,  such 
as  habitual  idle  speech,  immoderate  laughter,  the  neglect  of 
one's  private  aflfairs,  which  can  scarcely  be  done  without 
fault  even  by  those  who  know  how  they  ought  to  turn  away 
from  fault.  Such,  too,  is  the  error  of  ignorance  in  things 
not  weighty.  All  which  oppress  after  death,  if  they  have  not 
been  remitted  to  those  who  are  still  in  the  present  life.  For, 
when  Paul  says  tliat  Christ  is  the  foundation,  he  subjoins.  If 
any  one  build  on  this  foundation,  gold,  silver,  precious  stones, 
wood,  hay,  stubble,  6z;c.f  Although  this  may  be  understood 
of  the  fire  of  tribulation  applied  to  us  in  this  life,  yet  if  any 
one  so  receive  it  as  of  the  fire  of  a  future  purgation,  he  must 
anxiously  reflect  tliat  it  says  he  can  be  saved  by  fire  ;  not  he 
who  builds  on  this  foundation  iron,  brass,  or  lead,  that  is  the 
greater  sins,  and  therefore  the  harder,  and  even  then  insolu- 
ble ;  but  wood,  hay,  stubble,  the  least  and  lightest  sins,  which 
the  fire  easily  consumes.  Know  this,  too,  that  no  one  will 
obtain  any  purgation  there,  even  for  the  least  faults,  unless, 
by  good  actions  while  he  is  still  in  this  life,  he  shall  deserve 
there  to  obtain  it.":j:     "  What  other  sense,"  says  Dr.  Milner, 

*  St.  Matt.  xii.  32.  t  1  Cor.  iii.  12-15. 

t  S.  Greg.  Dialog,  lib.  iv.  c.  xxxix.     Opera,  ed.  Bened.  torn.  ii.  col. 
441-444. 


"  can  1  Cor.  iii.  12-15  bear,  than  that  which  the  holy  Fathers 
affix  to  it  V  And  here  is  a  holy  Father  of  the  Latin  Church, 
and  a  Pope  too,  who,  even  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  says, 
that  it  may  be  understood  of  the  fire  of  tribulation  in  this  life  ! 
Of  what  pigmy  growth  was  the  notion  of  a  purgatory  fire 
even  in  the  days  of  St.  Gregory  I.,  compared  with  the  giant 
form  to  which  it  ultimately  rose  ! 

To  detail  its  progress  by  recounting  the  absurd  and  pro- 
fane  legends   by  which   it  was  nourished,  might  amuse  the 
thoughtless  and  shock  the  devout,  but  would  not  be  consist- 
ent with  the  plan  or  purpose  of  this  book.     The  Council  of 
Trent  was  conscious  that  great  caution  and  reserve  were 
necessary  ;  and   the  decree  concerning  Purgatory  was  not 
finally  passed  till  the  last  session,  Dec.  4th,  1563.     It  made 
an  Article  of  Faith  of  that  which  had   been  previously  a 
matter  of  vague  opinion  ;  but  it  did  not  there  add  the  usual 
anathema,  though  it  was,  in  fact,  added  in  the  sixth  and 
twenty-second  Sessions.     That   the  intelligent  members  of 
the  Roman  Communion  are  ashamed  of  it,  may  be  inferred, 
I  think,  from  the  concession  of  Dr.  Milner,  *'  that  all  which 
is  necessary  to  be  believed  on  this  subject  is  contained  in  the 
following  brief  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Trent :  *  There 
is  a  Purgatory,  and  the  souls  detained  there  are  helped  by 
the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  and  particularly  by  the  accepta'- 
ble  sacrifice  of  the  Altar.'  "*      I  call  it  a  concession,  though 
it  should  rather  be  called  a  disingenuous  concealment  of  the 
truth.      For,  as  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  well  observes,  *'  its 
real  purport  is  as  follows:    'Since   the  Catholic  Church, 
instructed   by  Scripture,  and  the   ancient   tradition   of  the 
Fathers  hath  taught  in  sacred  Councils,  and  most  recently 
in  this  General  Council,f  that  there  is  a  Purgatory,:j:  and  that 
the  Souls  detained  there  are  helped  by  the  suffrages  of  the 
faithful,  especially  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Altar ;  the  holy 
Council  enjoins  the  Bishops  to  take  diligent  care  that  the  sound 
doctrine  on  the  subject  of  Purgatory  taught  by  the  holy  Fathers 
and  sacred   Councils,  be  believed  by  the  faithful,  he  held, 
taught,  and  every  where  preached.     The  more  difficult  and 
subtle  questions,  and  those  which  lead  not  to  edification,  the 


\ 


»  Letter  XLIII.  2. 


OF  PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.    221 


t  Sess.  XXII.  cap.  ii.  can.  iii. 
t  Sess.  VI.  can,  xxx. 


uncertain  points,  and  those  which  are  suspected  of  being 
false,  arc  not  to  be  published^  to  the  multitude,  and  those 
which  savour  of  base  lucre  are  to  be  altogether  prohibited.'  "* 
All  this  appears  very  decent  upon  paper,  but  it  is  very 
adroitly  left  to  the  Bishops  to  see  that  just  such  a  construc- 
tion be  put  upon  the  whole  matter  as  may  best  promote  the 
interests  of  the  Holy  See.  In  the  British  dominions  and  in 
America,  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  must  be  covered  up  un- 
der the  simple  .belief  o^  the  ancient  Church  in  the  interme- 
diate state,  and  the  practice  of  the  ancient  Church  of  Prayers 
and  Offerings  for  the  dead.  But  the  intermediate  state  for 
the  faithful  departed  is,  as  they  believe  it,  a  Paradise  of  re- 
pose, and  for  the  unrepentant  and  obdurate,  not  a  Purgatory, 
but  the  cell  of  condemned  criminals,  awaiting  at  the  general 
judgment,  the  Gehenna  of  fire.  It  is  plain  that  all  the  bene- 
fits which  the  dead  could  receive  from  their  offerings  and 
prayers  were,  as  they  thought,  \o  follow,  not  to  yrecede,  the 
general  judgment.  It  was  the  pleading  of  the  merits  of 
Christ  crucified,  for  souls  departed,  as  well  as  for  souls 
present  in  the  body.  And  even  if  the  clinging  affections  of 
this  mortal  state  led  them  to  pray  also  for  condemned  crimi- 
nals, that  their  future  sentence  might  be  mitigated  through 
divine  Mercy,  these  oblations,  "  though  of  no  advantage  to  the 
dead,^^  as  St  Augustine  beautifully  observed,  in  the  passage 
I  have  already  quoted,  might  yet  "  afford  some  consolation  to 
the  living  f" 

There  is  no  doubt  that  many  of  the  brightest  ornaments 
of  the  English  Communion  have  considered  this  practice  of 
the  Ancient  Church  as  a  pious  act  of  communion  with  the 
Saints  departed.  Dr.  Milner  pompously  brings  forward  the 
names  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  Andrews,  Ussher,  Montague, 
Taylor,  Forbes,  and  many  others,  as  believing  *'  that  the  dead 
ought  to  be  prayed  for;"  but  does  this  prove  that  they  believ- 
ed in  Purgatory  ?  No  such  thing.  '-  Is  not  all  our  trust," 
exclaims  Archbishop  Cranmer,  "  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  that 
we  be  cleansed,  purged,  and  washed  thereby  ?  And  will 
you  have  us  now  to  forsake  our  faith  in  Christ,  and  bring  us 
to  the  Pope's  Purgatory  to  be   washed  therein,  thinking  that 

•  Cone.  Trid.  »ess.  XXV.  Decretum  de  Purgatoiio.     Dr.  Phillpotts' 
Letters,  ut  sup.  pp.  114,  115. 


222 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S   END    OP   CONTROVERSY. 


OF   PURGATORY    AND    PRAYERS    FOR   THE   DEAD. 


223 


Christ's  blood  is  an  imperfect  lee  or  soap  that  washclh  not 
clean  ?  If  he  shall  die  without  mercy  that  treadeth  Christ's 
blood  under  his  feet,  what  is  treading  of  his  blood  under  our 
feet,  if  this  be  not?  But  if,  according  to  the  Catholic  faith 
which  the  holy  Scripture  teacheth,  and  the  prophets,  apos- 
tles, and  martyrs  confirmed  with  their  blood,  all  the  faithful 
that  die  in  the  Lord  be  pardoned  of  all  their  otfences  by 
Christ,  and  their  sins  be  clearly  sponged,  and  waslicd  away 
by  his  blood,  shall  they  after  be  cast  into  another  strong  and 
grievous  prison  of  Purgatory,  there  to  be  pflnished  again  for 
that  which  was  pardoned  before  ?  God  hath  promised  by  his 
word  that  the  souls  of  the  just  be  in  God's  hand,  and  no  pain 
shall  touch  them  ;  and  again  he  saith  :  *  B/essedbe  they  that 
die  in  the  Lord.  For  the  Spirit  of  God  saith^  that  from  hence- 
forth they  shall  rest  from  their  pains  J  "* 

In  the  first  prayer-book  of  Edward  VI.  which,  as  I  have 
before  observed,  expressed  the  unbiassed  judgment  of  Cran- 
mer  and  the  other  English  reformers  of  his  time,  the  ancient 
practice  of  prayers  for  the  dead  in  Christ  is  distinctly  follow- 
ed. Thus  at  the  Communion,  in  the  prayer  for  the  whole 
state  of  Christ's  Church,  all  baptized  persons  departed  and 
resting  in  the  sleep  of  peace,  are  commended  to  God's  mercy, 
at  the  last  day.  "  And  here  we  do  give  unto  thee  most  high 
praise  and  hearty  thanks  for  the  wonderful  grace  and  virtue 
declared  in  all  thy  Saints,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  : — 
And  chiefly  in  the  gloiious  and  most  blessed  virgin  Mary, 
mother  of  thy  Son  Jesu  Christ  our  Lord  and  God,  and  in  the 
holy  Patriarchs,  Prophets,  Apostles,  and  Martyrs,  whose  ex- 
amples (O  Lord)  and  steadfastness  in  thy  faith,  and  keeping 
thy  holy  commandments,  grant  us  to  follow."  After  this  act 
of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  oame  that  of  commendation. — 
"  We  commend  unto  thy  mercy  (O  Lord)  all  other  thy  ser- 
vants, which  are  departed  hence  from  us,  with  the  sign  of 
faith,  and  now  do  rest  in  the  sleep  of  peace  :  Grant  unto 
them,  we  beseech  thee,  thy  mercy  and  everlasting  peace,  and 
that  at  the  day  of  the  general  resurrection,  we  and  all  they 
which  be  of  the  mystical  body  of  thy  Son,  may  altogether 
be  set  on  his  right  hand,  and  hear  that  his  most  joyful  voice : 
Come  unto  me,  O  ye  that  be  blessed  of  my  Father,  and  pos- 


t^ 


•  Jenkyna'  Cranmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  234. 


sess  the  kingdom,  which  is  prepared  for  you,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  world  :  Grant  this,  O  Father,  for  Jesus 
Christ's  sake  our  only  Mediator  and  Advocate."*  Every  one 
who  has  fairly  examined  the  subject,  must  see  that  this  was 
in  exact  accordance  with  the  primitive  Liturgies,  while  it 
carefully  avoided  the  doctrine  of  a  purgatory  fire  before  the 
resurrection,  being  confined  to  baptized  persons  resting  in 
the  sleep  of  peace,  and  praying  only  for  the  blessings  of 
God's  everlasting  kingdom. 

The  same  is  also  apparent  in  the  language  of  the  first 
English  Burial  Service,  which  was  not  intended  to  be  used 
for  any  unbaptized  persons,  whether  infants  or  adults.  The 
Church  claims  not  the  prerogative  of  judging,  which  belongs 
only  to  the  Son  of  man,  and  confines  herself  to  cry  for  mer- 
cy :  *'  We  commend  into  thy  hands  of  mercy  (most  merciful 
Father)  the  soul  of  this  our  brother  departed,  &c.  And  his 
body  we  commit  to  the  earth  ;  beseeching  thine  infinite  good- 
ness to  give  us  grace  to  live  in  thy  fear  and  love,  and  to  die 
in  thy  favour ;  that  when  the  judgment  shall  come,  which 
thou  hast  committed  to  thy  well- beloved  Son,  both  this  our 
brother,  and  we,  may  be  found  acceptable  in  thy  sight, 
and  receive  that  blessing  which  thy  well-beloved  Son  shall 
then  pronounce  to  all  who  love  and  fear  thee,"  &c.  The 
benefit  of  all  prayers,  it  is  distinctly  admitted,  is  only  to  take 
effect  ^^  when  the  judgment  shall  come  ;^^  and  then  only  for  the 
sake  of  the  one  Mediator.  It  applies  to  those  who  are  at  rest, 
not  to  those  who  are  in  torment.  All  beyond  this  regards 
one  who  has  been  "delivered  from  the  miseries  of  this  wretch- 
ed world,  from  the  body  of  death  and  all  temptation  ;"  and 
has  committed  his  soul  into  God's  holy  hands.  "  Grant,  we 
beseech  thee,  that  at  the  day  of  judgment  his  soul  and  all  the 
souls  of  thy  elect,  departed  out  of  this  life,  may  with  us  and 
we  with  them,  fully  receive  thy  promises,  and  be  made  per- 
fect altogether  :  through  the  glorious  resurrection  of  thy  Son 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."f  It  is  the  language  of  faith,  if  not 
of  hope  ;  certainly  of  that  charity  which  believeth  and  hopeth 
and  endureth  all  things. 

The  dread  of  the  corrupt  doctrine  of  Purgatory  has  caused 

*  Reeling's  Liturgiae  Brittanicae,  p.  210. 
t  Keeling,  ut  sup.pp.  333-335. 


224 


BEPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


the  subsequent  changes  in  the  ritual  by  which  the  comme- 
moration of  the  righteous  souls  who  have  departed  in  Christ 
and  do  now  rest  from  their  labours  is  retained  ;  but  the 
Churches  of  the  English  Communion  have  never  condemned 
the  ancient  Catholic  practice,  and  wisely  in  my  judgment, 
have  left  it  to  the  private  consciences  of  their  members. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

OF    THE    INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS. 

"  None  of  the  eastern  churches,"  says  Mr.  Palmer, 
"have  ever  used  those  long  invocations  of  saints  which  oc- 
cur at  the  beginning  of  the  Roman  litany."  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  trace  the  antiquity  of  these  invocations  in  the 
western  churches,  beginning  with  the  ninth  century,  in 
which  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  their  being  customary. 
"  Manuscript  litanies  containing  invocations,  have  been  dis- 
covered by  learned  men,  which  appear,  from  internal  evi- 
dence, to  be  as  old  as  the  eighth  century.  Beyond  this  "point 
there  appears  to  he  no  tangible  evidence  for  the  use  of  invoca- 
tions in  litanies,''  It  is  true  that  the  practice  o{ prayers  made 
to  God  that  the  intercession  of  saints  may  be  heard,  is  more 
ancient ;  but  that  is  entirely  a  different  question.  "  If  the 
invocation  of  saints  had  been  practiced  in  the  litany  during 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  we  should  assuredly  have  found 
some  allusion  to  it  in  the  writings  of  Gregory  of  Tours,  of 
Avitus,  or  Sidonius,  or  Gregory  the  Great,  who  all  speak 
repeatedly  of  litanies.  But  this  silence  of  the  Fathers  of 
those  ages  is  well  accounted  for  by  the  actual  production  of 
several  most  ancient  western  litanies ^  in  which  there  is  noinvO" 
cation  of  saints.''* 

"  If  then,"  continues  the  same  author,  "  the  Church  of 
England  had  only  wished  to  assimilate  her  rites  to  those  of 
the  Catholic  Church  during  the  first  seven  centuries,  she 
would  have  been  obliged  to  omit  the  invocations  which  had 

»  Antiq.  of  the  Eng.  Ritual,  ed.  2,vol.i.  pp.  276-279. 


OF   THE    INVOCATION    OF   SAINTS. 


225 


for  a  considerable  time  been  placed  at  the  beginning  of  her 
litany.  And  who  will  venture  to  blame  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land for  assimilating  her  rites  to  those  of  the  primitive 
Catholic  Church  1"  He  then  proceeds  to  justify  the  conduct 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  other  grounds.  1.  By  the  ad- 
mission of  all  parties,  it  is  unnecessary  to  invoke  the  saints, 
for  two  reasons:  first,  we  are  not  commanded  by  God  to  do 
so,  but  are  invited  to  call  on  the  Lord  in  the  day  of  trouble j 
and  are  assured  that  if  toe  ask  any  thing  in  Christ's  name. 
He  will  do  it.  Secondly,  the  saints  departed  pray  for  their 
brethren  in  this  world  already,  and  consequently  need  not 
be  asked  to  do  what  they  do  spontaneously.  2.  It  is  impru- 
dent to  invoke  the  saints,  because  we  know  not  whether  they 
can  hear  our  invocations.  The  Catholic  Church  has  not 
taught  us  that  the  saints  certainly  hear  any  address  made  to 
them.  But  we  are  certain  that  God  hears  us,  and  that  He 
is  ready  to  succour  to  the  utmost  those  that  come  to  Him.  If 
we  fly  from  such  prayers  to  invocations  of  saints,  we  ex- 
change a  certain  means  of  grace  for  an  uncertainty,  and  so 
act  imprudently.  3.  To  invoke  the  saints,  exposes  us  to  the 
peril  of  heresy  and  blasphemy.  The  custom  leads  to  the 
belief  that  the  saints  always  hear  our  prayers  addressed  to 
them  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  This  is  a  divine  power,  an 
intrinsic  omniscience  and  omnipresence,  which  can  belong 
to  God  only.  To  attribute  such  powers  to  created  beings,  is 
heretical  and  blasphemous.* 

It  appears  to  me,  from  the  late  period  in  which  this  prac- 
tice was  introduced,  that  it  must  have  been  one  of  the 
fruits  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  It  grows  immediately 
out  of  the  doctrine  that  the  saints  are  now  reigning  in 
heaven  ;  and  that  doctrine  grew"  out  of  the  penal  character 
of  the  intermediate  state.  What  evidence  is  there *that  the 
saints  departed  are  now  reigning  with  Christ  in  heaven  ? 
The  true  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state  is  as 
much  at  variance  with  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  as  it  is 
with  purgatory.  St.  Paul  describes  those  who  have  died  in 
faith  trom  the  beginning  of  the  Mediatorial  kingdom  as  not 
having  yet  received  the  promises,  but  waiting  for  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things,  "  that  they  without  us  should  not  be 

*  Antiq.  of  the  Eng.  Ritual,  ed.  2,  vol.  i.  pp.  289-291. 


226  REPLY   TO   MILNER's  END   OF  CONTROVERSY. 


made  perfect :"  and  then  comparing  the  efforts  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  to  the   races  of  the  Stadium,  and  the  innumerable 
company  of  the  saints  departed,  to  the  spectators  reposing^ 
on  the  seats  of  some  vast  amphitheatre,  interested  in  our 
conflict  though  not  themselves  engaged  in  it,  he  calls  upon 
us  to  strain  every  nerve,  cheered  as  we  are,  by  the  example 
and  approbation  of  that  august   assembly.*     Tliey  are  in 
the  unseen  world  ;  and   when  any  Christian  soul  arrives  at 
the  end  of  Ids  race   and  passes    into  that    blessed  society, 
crowned  with  victory,  he  is   welcomed  with  a  joy  which  to 
us  is  unutterable.     St.  John  in  his  prophetic  vision  of  the 
opening  of  the  fifth  seal,   "saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of 
them  that  were   slain  for  the  word  of  God  and  for  the  testi- 
mony which  they  held."    They  were  the  Christian  martyrs  ; 
"  and  they  cried  with  a  loud    voice  saying,  How  long,  O 
Lord,  holy  and  true,  dost  thou   not  judge  and    revenge  our 
blood,  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?     And  white  robes 
were  given  unto  every  one  of  them ;  and  it  was  said  unto 
them  that  they  should  rest  yet  for  a  little  season,  until  their 
fellow  servants  also  and  their  brethren,  that  should  be  killed 
as  they  were,  should  be  fulfilled. "f     It  was  a  prayer  that  God 
would  shortly  accomplish  the  number  of  his  elect,  and  hasten 
his  kingdom  ;  the  prayer  of  the  invisible  assembly  and  Church 
of  the  first-born,  waiting  for  the  general  resurrection  at  the 
last  day,  and   the  life  of  the  world  to  come  ;  the   prayer  of 
the  blessed  saints  "  upon  their  beds  "  of  refreshment  and  re- 
pose, but  not  of  the  saints  reigning  with  Christ  in   glory 
everlasting.     That  will  not  be  until  the  first  resurrection. 
For  the  same  beloved   disciple  "  saw  thrones  and   tliey  sat 
upon  them,  and  judgment  was  given  unto  them.''     They  are 
the  same  souls  as  were  before  described  as  being  under  the 
altar,  the  Christian  Martyrs  and  Confessors,  wlio  will  have 
part  in  the  first  resurrection  ;  on  whom  the  second  death  hath 
no  power,  but  who  shall  be  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and 
shall  reign  with  him  a  thousand  >ears.:j:     If  then  the  saints 
are  not  noio  reigning  with  Christ,  and  sliall  not   reign   until 
the  first  resurrection,  they  cannot  properly  be  invoked. 

»  Heb.  xi.  1,  to  xii.  13.  f  Rev.  vi.  9-11. 

X  Rev.  XX.  4-6. 


OF   IMAGES   AND   RELICS. 


227 


CHAPTER  X. 


OF    IMAGES   AND   RELICS. 

Dr.  Milner,  according  to  his  usual  practice  of  covering 
up  what  he  cannot  well  defend,  has,  in  his  thirty-fourth 
letter,  assumed  for  Images  and  Relics  the  soft  epithet  of 
"  Religious  Memorials."  He  complains  of  the  grievous 
injury  done  to  his  Communion  "by  the  prevailing  calumnies 
against  the  respect  which  she  pays  to  the  memorials  of  Christ 
and  his  saints ;  namely,  to  crucifixes,  relics,  pious  pictures, 
and  images."  It  is  always  gratifying  to  every  lover  of 
truth  to  see  this  retreat  from  untenable  outworks  ;  and  we 
should  have  some  hope  of  a  speedy  and  honourable  peace,  if 
the  claim  of  infallibility  did  not  interfere  and  break  off  all 
negotiations. 

Dr.  Milner  suppresses  or  perverts  the  truth.  Archbishop 
Cranmer's  Bible  of  1539-40,  in  Col.  iii.  5,  reads  idols  not 
itnagesy  and  in  Ephes.  v.  5,  images  not  idols — a  plain  proof 
that  he  took  his  quotations  from  some  second  hand.  The 
Bishop's  Bible,  first  published  in  1568,  reads  in  every  place 
quoted  by  him  as  our  present  translation  reads,  idols,  idola- 
ters, and  idolatry.  So  did  the  Geneva  or  Puritan  Bible  be- 
fore it.  The  objection  is  not  to  religious  memorials,  but  to 
the  worshipping  of  them.  This  would  have  been  apparent 
to  his  readers  if  he  had  given  the  whole  passage  from  Hey- 
lin,  of  which  he  quotes  only  so  much  as  suits  his  purpose. 
Queen  Elizabeth  did  no  more  than  the  Lutherans,  the  strict 
and  proper  Protestants,  had  always  done,  and  continue  to  do, 
even  to  this  day.  This  partial  quotation,  leaving  out  all 
inconvenient  particulars,  is  a  part  of  Dr.  Milner's  system. 
He  quotes  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  so  far  as  the 
disclaimer  of  intentional  idolatry  is  concerned ;  but  he  pru- 
dently suppresses  what  the  decree  says  of  kissing  the  images, 
not  only  of  Christ,  but  of  the  Virgin  and  other  saints,  of 
uncovering  the  head,  and  prostrating  ourselves  before  them. 
To  these  very  acts,  which  the  Council  of  Trent  assumes  to 
be  "  the  honour  and  veneration  justly  due  to  them,  and  there- 
fore to  be  paid,"  Bishop  Porteus  objected  ',  and  the  innocent 


228 


REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Dr.  Miliier,  treating  it  all  the  time  as  if  it  was  only  an  un- 
founded objection,  answers,  **  Supposing  all  this  to  be  true .'" 
Not  a  word  escapes  him  which  could  lead  Mr.  James  Brown 
and  his  company  to  infer  that  it  was  more  than  a  Protestant 
calumny. — And  then  he  wishes  to  put  it  all  upon  the  same 
footing  as  kissing  the  Bible  when  we  take  an  oath,  bowing 
at  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  kneeling  when  we  receive  the 
sacrament ! 

The  Bishop  objected  to  ^'  pictures  of  God  the  Father 
under  the  likeness  of  a  venerable  old  man."  It  "is  not  so 
common,"  replies  Dr.  Milner,  "  as  that  of  a  triangle  among 
Protestants  to  represent  the  Trinity !"  What  a  Jesuitical 
shuffle  is  here  !  The  incommunicable  name  of  Jehovah,  He 
v/ho  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come,  the  great  and  awful  I  AM, 
expressed  by  the  four  Hebrew  letters  of  that  mysterious 
name,  surrounded  by  an  equilateral  triangle  as  a  symbol  of 
the  Trinity  in  Unity,  is  placed  by  Dr.  Milner  upon  a  par 
with  the  figure  of  an  old  man,  to  represent  God  the  Father, 
whom  eye  hath  not  seen,  and  cannot  see !  I  have  in  my 
possession,  published  so  late  as  in  1830,  and  purchased  by 
me  at  the  Roman  College  de  Fide  Propaganda,  a  picture  of 
God  the  Father,  with  the  Pope's  triple  crown  upon  his  head  ! 
and  clothed  in  the  Pope's  pontifical  dress !  What  will  the 
pious  members  of  the  Roman  Communion  in  Great  Britain 
and  America  say  to  that  ? 

Look  too  at  the  quibble  about  the  omission  of  the  second 
commandment.  In  the  Hebrew  Bible  forsooth  there  is  no 
distinction,  "no  mark  of  separation  between  one  command- 
ment and  another."  It  is  not  true  ;  but  if  it  were,  what 
then  ?  Is  that  a  reason  for  omitting  all  that  the  Bible  says, 
strictly  forbidding  us  to  bow  down  to  any  graven  image,  or 
likeness  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth  ?  The  omission  of  the  second  command- 
ment is  the  tacit  acknowledgment  of  a  guilty  conscience. 

As  to  relics,  there  is  an  innate  reverence  in  the  human 
heart  for  the  remains  of  a  dear  friend.  Association  is  a 
powerful  law  of  our  nature ;  and  if  we  could  be  sure  that 
we  possessed  any  such  memorial  of  our  dear  Redeemer,  or 
of  his  Holy  Apostles,  or  of  any  of  the  martyrs  who  shed 
their  blood,  rather  than  depart  from  their  steadfast  confession 
of  His  name,  we  should   certainly  prize  them  in  proportion 


OF    IMAGES   AND   RELICS. 


229 


to  the  fervour  of  our  affections.     But  what  evidence  have  we 
of  such   possessions  ?    The  only  reverence  paid  by  devout 
men  to  the  remains  of  the  early  martyrs  consisted  in  carry- 
ing them  to  their  burial,  and  making  great  lamentation  over 
them.*     The  anniversary  of  their  deaths  was  celebrated  at 
their  graves,  and  at  a  later  period  churches  were  built  there. 
But  there  is  no  proof  of  the  disinterment  of  their  bones,  or 
the  collection  of  relics,  until  the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 
At  that  time  so  uncertain  was  the  evidence  of  their  identity, 
that  recourse  was  had  to  the  demonstrations  of  miraculous 
power.     As  a  dead  man  had  been  revived  by  the  bones  of 
Elisha,t  the  sacred  history  suggested  a  precedent  for  sim- 
ilar wonders.     But  even  in  the  days  of  St.  Augnstine,  the 
venders  of  false  relics  had  begun  their  frauds ;  for  he  speaks 
of  many  hypocrites,  under  the  garb  of  monks,  strolling  through 
the  provinces,  uncommissioned,  and  wandering  every  where 
under  various  pretexts  ;  some  selling  members  of  martyrs,  if 
indeed  they  be  of  martyrs  ;  others  extolling  their  fringes  and 
phylacteries;  others  seeking  their  relations, "J  &c.      How 
profitable  this  trade  afterwards  became,  it  would  be  easy  to 
show.     The  counterfeit  relics  from  the  catacombs  of  Rome, 
are  even  now  distributed.     1  was  there  in  1831,  descending 
from  St.  Sebastian,  with  a  sub-deacon  to  guide  and  guard  me. 
One  of  my  little  daughters  picked  up  something  which  she 
was   attentively  examining,  when   the   young   man  rushed 
upon  her,  with  an  expression  of  holy  horror,  snatching  it 
out  of  her  hands,  and  exclaiming,  "  It  is  a  bone  !" 

"  The  ecclesiastical  writers  say,"  says  the  Roman  Guide- 
book, "  that  fourteen  Popes,  and  about  one  hundred  and  seventy 
thousand  martyrs  are  buried  there. "§  A  pretty  good  stock 
in  trade,  this!  And  when  it  is  remembered  that  so  many  fic- 
titious saints,  so  many  Saints  Paralipomenon  (Chronicles), 
and  Veronica  (Lat.  vera  icon)  have  been  fabricated,  there 
can  be  no  lack  of  subjects.  And  if  there  were,  it  is  an  easy 
matter  to  furnish  each  Saint  with  two  or  three  heads  apiece. 
I  went  into  a  Church  in  Turin  where  the  head  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  is  venerated.     This  was  in  1828;  and  in   1830 


364. 


•  Acts  viii.  2.  t  2  Kings  xiii.  21. 

t  S.  Aug.  de  Opere  Monachorum,  cap.  xxviii.    Opera,  torn.  vi.  col. 


§  Nibby  Itinerario  di  Roma,  1827,  torn.  ii.  p.  535. 

11 


230 


REPLY    TO   MILNEr's   END    OF   CONTROVERSY. 


OF    IMAGES    AND    RELICS. 


231 


I  went  into  a  Church  in  Rome,  where  also  tlie  undoubted 
head  of  St.  .Tohn  the  Baptist  received  equal  veneration. 
"  Are  you  quite  sure,  Signore,"  said  I  to  my  conductor, 
"  that  you  have  the  real  head  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  ?" 
"  Sicuro !  "  said  he,  with  the  look  and  accent  of  surprise 
that  there  could  be  such  a  question  asked.  "  But  I  was 
told  at  Turin,*'  I  rejoined,  "  that  they  had  the  head  of  St. 
John  the  Baptist  there."  Nothing  daunted,  he  replied,  "  That 
may  well  be,  sir,  for  it  is  in  the  power  of  God  to  create  two 
heads  ! ! ! "  "  The  holy  bodies  of  martyrs  and  other  saints," 
says  the  Council  of  Trent,  "  which  bodies  when  living,  were 
members  of  Christ,  and  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
will  hereafter  be  raised  by  him  to  eternal  life,  and  glorified, 
are  to  he  venerated  by  the  faithful^  Here  you  have  the 
command.  "  By  these  bodies  many  benefits  are  conferred  by 
God  on  men.^'  Here  you  have  the  promised  reward.  "  So 
that  they  who  affirm  that  veneration  and  honour  are  not  due 
to  the  relics  of  the  saints,  or  that  they  and  other  sacred  mon- 
uments are  unprofitably  honoured  by  the  faithful,  and  that  it 
is  vain  to  resort  to  the  memorials  of  the  saints  for  the  sake 
of  obtaining  their  aid,  are  utterly  to  be  condemned,  as  the 
Church  hath  long  since  condemned,  and  doth  now  again  con- 
demn them."*     Here  you  have  the  anathema  ! 

All  this  "  proves,  beyond  contradiction,"  as  the  Bishop 
of  Exeter  well  observes,  that  the  Roman  Church  "  teaches" 
all  in  her  communion,  "  to  look  to  Relics  as  means  by  which 
blessings  may  be  obtained  from  God."  It  proves,  therefore, 
(in  spite  of  a  feeble  caution  which,  for  form's  sake  is  after- 
wards added)  that  the  monstrous  and  degrading  superstitions 
which  have  been  practised  in  this  matter,  have  not  been  the 
mere  unauthorized  follies  of  individuals,  but  that"  the  Ro- 
man Communion,  "  as  a  Church,  is  deeply  responsible  for 
them ;  that  they  are  the  natural,  the  necessary,  results  of 
her  own  doctrine,  and  are  almost  sanctioned  by  her  own  for- 
mal and  solemn  decree.  But  even  this  decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil is  not  all.  Its  Catechism  is  more  particular.  Assuming, 
as  notorious,  that  there  is  virtue  in  relics^  it  asks,  how  is  this 
truth  confirmed  ?  The  answer  is,  *  by  the  miracles  wrought  at 

»  Cone.  Trident.  Sess.  XXV.    Phillpotts'  Letters  to  Butler,  p.  63. 
Ferceval  oa  the  Roman  Schism,  p.  336. 


the  sepulchres  of  the  saints,  by  the  lost  eyes,  hands,  and 
other  members,  which  have  there  been  restored ;  by  the 
dead  recalled  to  life ;  by  evil  spirits  ejected  from  the  bodies 
of  the  living.  .  .  .  If  garments,  handkerchiefs,  or  the  shadow 
of  saints  before  they  departed  out  of  this  life,  expelled  dis- 
eases, and  repaired  the  wasted  strength  of  the  sick,  who 
can  dare  to  deny  that  God,  by  means  of  their  sacred  ashes, 
hones,  and  other  relics,  does  still  produce  the  same  miracu- 
lous effects  V  "* 

In  this  way  are  the  miracles  of  the  Apostolic  age,  of 
which  we  are  assured  by  the  Holy  Ghost  himself,  brought 
into  doubt  by  the  lying  wonders  of  credulous  and  supersti- 
tious, if  not  fraudulent  and  designing  men  !  The  true  gold, 
bearing  the  image  and  superscription  of  the  King  of  Heaven, 
is  suspected,  because  of  the  false  counters,  put  in  circulation 
from  the  fifth  to  the  nineteenth  century ! 

Were  we,  in  retaliation  for  the  curses  so  liberally  de- 
nounced upon  us  by  Rome,  to  accuse  her  members  of  foul 
idolatry,  should  we  not  be  justified  ? — But  retaliation  is  not 
a  Christian  grace  ;  and  therefore  we  will  rather  pray,  that 
this  sin  be  not  laid  to  their  charge  in  that  awful  day,  when 
they,  as  well  as  we,  must  be  judged  for  the  deeds  done  in 
the  body,  and  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  disclosed. 

I  conclude  this  part  of  my   subject  with  the   words  of 
Bishop    Montague,    whom    Dr.    Milner  hath  so   strangely 
misrepresented,   as  if  he  favoured  the  Invocation  of  Saints. 
"  Whatsoever  they  do  for  us,  we  do  not  much  for  them ;  for 

we  say  we  may  not  pray  unto  them Pray  to  them  if 

you  will ;  we  and  our  people  will  pray  unto  the  Lord,  who 
is  ready,  willing,  able  to  hear  us  every  way,  without  such 
advocates  or  mediators. "f  Afterwards  speaking  of  Relics, 
which  if  true  he  would  honour,  he  says  :  "  Worship  them  I 
dare  not.  Shew  them  as  you  doe  1  would  not — in  this  you 
abuse  them  too  profanely,  making  merchandize  of  the  Word 
of  God,  In  that  you  profane  them  to  Idolatry,  misleading  the 
people  to  adore  them."f  Of  images  he  says,  "  I  doe  not,  I 
cannot,  I  will  not  denie,  that  Idolatry  is  grossely  committed 
in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  ruder  sort,  at  least,  are  not  ex- 

•  Letters  to  Butler,  ut  sup.  pp.  64,  65.     Cat.  Rom.  p.  iii.  c.  ii.  §  8. 
t  Gagger  Gagged,  p,  234.  X  lb.  p.  238. 


232 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


cusable,  who  goe  to  it  with  downe-right  Idolatry ,  without  any 
relative  adoration^  worshipping  that  which  they  behold  with 
their  eyes,  the  Image  of  the  B.  Virgin,  S.  Peter,  S.  Paul, 
the  Crucifixe  ;  as  if  Christ  Jesus  were  present.  This  Idol- 
atry is  ancient  in  their  schools."* 


CFIAPTER  XI. 


ON    THE   power   OF    INDULGENCES. 

"  The  doctrine  of  Purgatory,"  says  Bishop  Taylor,  "  is 
the  mother  of  Indulgences,  and  the  fear  of  that  hath  introdu- 
ced these. "f  Bishop  Porteus  had  made  a  similar  assertion  ; 
and  for  this,  Dr.  Milner,  in  his  forty-second  letter,  accuses 
him  of  "  confused  ideas,  and  imperfect  knowledge  J^  1  must  sub- 
mit to  the  same  accusation,  though  I  will  not  plead  guilty  to 
the  charge. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  early  discipline  of  the  Church 
was  very  severe.  To  go  no  higher  than  the  first  General 
Council,  A.  D.  325,  the  penitential  Canons  in  some  cases  require 
suspension  from  Communion  and  public  penance,  excepting 
severe  illness  and  danger  of  death,  for  a  great  many  years. 
A  dispensing  power,  however,  resided  in  the  bishop,  on  e  'i- 
dence  of  the  sinner's  repentance.  Any  such  release  or  mit- 
igation, was  called  an  Indulgence.  But  this  was  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  Indulgences  of  which  the  two  learned  bishops 
were  speaking,  and  to  which  we  of  the  English  Communion 
object.  "  They  who  think  of  doing  penance  often,"  says  St. 
Ambrose,  "  are  deservedly  reproved,  because  they  grow 
wanton  against  Christ.  For  if  they  did  penance  truly,  they 
would  not  think  it  was  to  be  repeated  ;  because,  as  there  is 
but  one  baptism,  so  there  is  but  one  penance  that  is  performed 
in  public.  There  is  indeed  a  daily  repentance  from  sin,  but 
that  is  for  lesser  sins,  and  the  other  for  greater. "|  There 
is  an  ancient  homily,  attributed  both  to  St.  Ambrose  and  St. 

•  Appeal,  c.  xxxiv,  p.  248. 

t  Dissuasive  from  Popery,  sect.  iv. 

t  S.  Ambrop.  de  PoRnitent.  lib.  ii.  c.  10. 


OF   THE   POWER   OF  INDULGENCES. 


233 


Augustine,  and  consequently  of  later  date  than  either,  which 
I  quote  here  from  Bingham,  because  it  shows  clearly  I  think 
that  the  idea  of  Indulgences,  applied  to  the  future  state,  was 
not  yet  known.     "If  a  man  repents  at  his  last  hour  and  is 
reconciled,  and  so  dies,  I  am  not  secure  that  this  man  goes 
hence  securely  -,  I  can  admit  him  to  penance,  but  I  can  give 
him  no  security.  Do  I  say,  he  shall  be  damned  ?  I  do  not  say 
it ;  but  neither  do  I  say  he  shall  be  saved.     What  then  do  I 
say  ?  I  know  not,  I  presume  not,  I  promise  not.  For  I  know 
not  the  will  of  God.     Would   you  free  yourself  from  all 
doubt,  and  avoid  that  which  is  uncertain  ?      Repent  whilst 
you  are  in  health,  and  you  will  be  secure  when  your  last  day 
finds  you  ;  because  you  repent  in  a  time  when  you  had  pow- 
er to  sin.     But  if  you  then  only  begin  to  repent,  tohen  you 
can  sin  no  longer,  it  is  not  so  much  you  that  forsake  your 
sins,  as  your  sins  that  forsake  you."*     The  object  of  the 
Clmrch  was  to  reclaim  in  this  life,  not  to  have  satisfaction 
made  for  sin  hereafter.    Indeed  the  commutation  of  penance 
in  this  life,  by  bodily  austerities,  or  payingsumsof  money  is 
not  traced  higher  by  Morinus  than  the  close  of  the  seventh 
century.     From  various  passages  in  the  works  of  St.  Peter 
Damian,  who  flourished  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eleventh 
century,  it  appears,  that  one  year  of  penance  might  be  com- 
muted, by  singing  the  Psalter  three  times  each  month,  and  at 
the  end  of  each  Psalter,  inflicting  upon  oneself  three  hun- 
dred blows.     One  hundred  solidi,  or  shillings,  given  in  alms 
were  also  estimated  as  one  year  of  penance.       He  who  had 
done  all  this  one  hundred  times,  was  entitled  to  a  hundred 
years ;  and  he  who  did  it  a  thousand  times,  to  a  thousand 
years  of  penance.f     This  exhibits  the  beginning  of  satis- 
faction for  the  pains  of  Purgatory.    St.  Peter  Damian  speaks 
of  a  person  who  performed  a  hundred  years  of  penance  in 
six  days.     "  I  remember  also,"  says  he,  "  that  when  I  had 
imposed  a  thousand  years  of  penance  upon  a  certain  person 
just  before  Lent,  he  finished  the  whole  before  the  fast  was 
ended. "J 

The  sale  of  Indulgences  was  begun  by  Pope  Victor  II., 
A.  D.  1087,  and  the  example  was  followed  in  a.  d.  1095  by 

•  Bingham,  Antiq.  book  xviii.  c.  iv.  sect.  6. 

t  Morinus  de  Adm.  Sacram.  Poenit.  lib.  x.  c.  xvii.  xviii.  pp.  760-763. 

\  Morinus,  ut  sup.  p.  7G4. 


234  REPLY    TO    MILNER'S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


Pope  Urban  IL  In  the  exhortation  of  the  latter  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Clermont,  to  enter  on  the  Crusade  under  Peter  the 
Hermit,  he  thus  addressed  the  congregated  warriors: — 
"  Thefts,  conflagrations,  rapine,  murder  and  other  acts,  the 
doers  of  which  shall  not  possess  the  kingdom  of  God,  do  you 
redeem  by  this  well  pleasing  obedience  to  God  ;  so  that  these 
your  deeds  of  piety,  united  to  the  prayers  of  the  Saints,  may 
obtain  for  you  a  speedy  Indulgence  for  all  the  crimes  by  which 
you  have  provoked  the  Lord  to  anger.  We  admonish  you 
therefore,  and  exhort  you  in  the  Lord,  and  we  enjoin  it  upon 
you  for  the  remission  of  your  sins,  that  with  due  attention, 
you  curb  the  insolence  ....  of  the  infidels,  in  pity  for  the 
afflictions  and  toils  of  our  brethren  and  co-heirs  of  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven,  who  dwell  at  Jerusalem  and  in  its  limits 

....  We  therefore,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  and  confiding  in  the 
authority  of  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  relax 
the  immense  penances  for  their  sins,  to  all  faithful  Christians 
who  shall  take  up  arms  against  them,  and  assume  the  bur- 
den of  this  Pilgrimage.  And  they  who  depart  this  life  in 
true  penitence,  need  not  doubt  that  they  will  receive  both  the 
Indulgence  of  their  sins,  and  the  fruit  of  everlasting  re- 
ward.^^* 

Alexander  of  Hales,  who  flourished  a.  d.  1230,  was  the 
first,  according  to  Morinus,  who  spake,  with  hesitation  and 
somewhat  in  a  doubting  manner,  of  the  supererogatory  merits 
of  Christ's  members,  united  to  the  supererogatory  merits  of 
Christ  himself.  These  are  his  very  words.  "  It  may  be  said, 
that  when  the  Lord  Pope  gives  a  full  Indulgence,  he  himself 
punishes,  by  obliging  the  Church,  or  some  member  of  the 
Church,  to  make  satisfaction.  Or  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
treasure  of  the  Church,  which  is  set  forth  for  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Church,  is  principally  estimated  from  the  merits  of 
Christ,  &c.  Whence  it  may  be  said,  that  God  punishes  the  evil 
actions  which  receive  indulgence,  as  Man  and  God,  suffering 
and  satisfying  for  us,  and  so  Christ,  both  God  and  Man, 
punishes  or  hath  punished." — "  He  had  previously  showed," 
says   Morin,    "  that   this  treasure,   from   which  compensa- 

*  Willel.  Tyr.  apud  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos,  lib.  i.  c.  xv.     Morinus, 
ut  sup.  c.  xix.  p.  765. 


OF   THE    POWER    OF    INDULGENCES. 


235 


tion  made  to  God    is  derived,    is   composed  of  these  merits 
of  supererogation  of  Christ  and  his  members."* 

Without  tracing  farther  the  progress  of  this  tenet  con- 
cerning the  Church's  treasure,  suffice  it  to  say,  that  Pope  Cle- 
ment VI,  who  reigned  ten  years  from  a.  d.  1342,  proclaimed 
that  as  "  a  single  drop  of  Christ's  blood  would  have  sufficed 
for  the  redemption  of  the  whole  human  race,  the  rest  was  a 
treasure  which  He  acquired  for  the  militant  Church,  to  be 
used  for  the  benefit  of  His  sons  ;  which  treasure  He  would  not 
suffer  to  be  hid  in  a  napkin,  or  buried  in  the  ground,  but  com- 
mitted it  to  be  dispensed  by  St.  Peter  and  his  succesors.  His 
own  vicars  upon  earth,  for  proper  and  reasonable  causes,  for 
the  total  or  partial  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  due 
to  sin  ;  and  for  an  augmentation  of  this  treasure,  the  merits  of 
the  blessed  Mother  of  God  and  of  all  the  elect,  are  known  to 
come  in  aid."t 

To  know  the  value  ofFatherMorin's  testimony,  it  is  to  be 
remembered,  that  he  was  a  priest  of  the  Oratory  at  Paris  from 
1618,  revered  by  all  who  knew  him  for  his  blameless  life 
and  great  learning.  He  laboured  on  the  work  I  have  quoted 
for  thirty  years  ;  and  though,  when  it  was  first  published  in 
1651,  it  had  little  success,  because  he  attacked  in  his  pre- 
face the  Port-Royal  divines,  yet  its  merits  were  acknowledged 
ten  years  later ;  and  his  latest  French  biographer  acknow- 
ledges, that  it  is  an  indispensable  work,  for  all  who  wish  tho- 
roughly to  understand  the  subject  of  Penance.  J 

Compare  Dr.  Milner  with  such  a  writer  as  Morin,  and 
conceive  the  effrontery  of  the  former  in  denying  what  the 
latter  so  frankly  acknowledges.  All  that  Bishop  Porteus 
had  asserted  in  defining  an  Indulgence  to  be  a  transfer  of  the 
overplus  of  the  Saints'  goodness,  joined  with  the  merits  of 
Christ,  dec.  is  admitted  by  Morin,  but  is,  in  Dr.  Milner' s  judg- 
ment  (?)  an  evidence  of  confused  ideas  and  imperfect  know- 
ledge f 


*  Morinus,  ut  sup.,  lib.  x.  cap.  xxi.  sec.  6,  7,  p.  772. 

t  Clemens  VI.  in  Extrav.  Unigenitus,  cited  by  Morinus  ut  sup.  p. 
774,  and  translated  by  Dr.  Philipotts,  Letters  to  Butler,  p.  172.  For 
his  observations  on  "  Dr.  Milnefs  oft  convicted  insincerity T  the  reader 
is  especially  referred  to  the  whole  of  Letter  VIH.  on  Indulgences,  pp. 
158-195. 

X  Biographic  Universelle,  8vo.  1821,  torn.  xxx.  p.  169,  art.  Morin. 


236 


REPLY    TO    MILNER*S    END    OF    COKTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

OF    THE    ROMAN    SUPREMACY. 

This  subject  involves  the  whole  Constitutional  History  of 
the  Christian  Church ;  and  a  single  chapter  upon  it  can  say 
but  little,  and  that  little  in  a  very  brief  and  summary  manner. 
So  long  ago  as  in  1836,  the  author  of  these  pages  endeavour- 
ed to  bring  it  into  the  compass  of  an  Appendix  to  his  publish- 
ed sermon  on  Christian  Unity  ;  but  it  swelled  so  under  his 
hands  that  he  was  compelled  to  throw  it  aside.  At  that  time,  it 
was  read  to  a  learned  Greek,  who  held  in  his  hands  all  the 
cited  authorities,  and  verified  every  quotation.  I  recur  to  it, 
therefore,  with  the  more  confidence ;  and  shall  here  present 
to  the  reader  a  brief  outline  of  the  results  at  which  it  arrived* 

The  learned,  who  have  studied  the  subject,  though  of  op- 
posite sects  and  of  most  discordant  opinions,  seem  to  agree  on 
one  point,  viz.,  that  from  the  Apostolic  Age  the  external  ar- 
rangement and  discipline  of  the  Church  were  influenced  by 
the  political  divisions  of  the  Roman  Empire.  No  one,  indeed, 
can  read  the  Apostolical  writings,  with  a  map  before  him  on 
which  those  divisions  are  traced,  without  perceiving  that  the 
Apostles  were  thus  influenced ;  and  it  forms  no  small  part  of 
the  internal  and  indirect  evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  sacred 
history,  that  we  find  such  an  entire  harmony  in  those  minute 
particulars  in  which  Imposture  is  most  likely  to  betray  itself. 

The  several  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire  were  sub- 
divided into  cities,  each  having  a  suburban  jurisdiction  ;  but 
there  was  one  city  in  which  the  Governor  of  each  province 
resided,  and  which,  being  commonly  the  oldest,  was  consider- 
ed as  the  parent  of  all  the  rest.  For  this  reason,  it  was  call- 
ed the  Metropolis  or  Mother  City.  Instead,  however,  of  re- 
siding at  Jerusalem,  the  Roman  Governor  of  Judaea  resided 
at  Caesarea  on  the  sea-coast ;  and  this  was  the  political  me- 
tropolis. Any  one  who,  even  cursorily,  examines  the  first 
fifteen  chapters  of  the  Acts,  will  see  that  a  Church  was  early 
planted,  not  only  in  Caesarea,  but  also  in  Lydda,  Joppa, 
Azotus,  and  Gaza,  on  or  near  the  coast,  and  at  Sebaste  or  Sa- 
maria, and  in  Galilee.  Thence  the  Church  was  extended  to 
Damascus,  the  Capital  of  Phoenicia  Secunda,  and  to  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  the  first  and  second  cities  of  Phoenicia  Prima. — 


i 


OF    THE    ROMAN    SUPREMACY. 


237 


The  island  of  Cyprus  was  visited  by  the  Apostles  for  the  same 
purpose,  first  at  its  chief  city,  Salamis.   Antioch  was  the  princi- 
pal city  of  Syria  ;  Tarsus,  of  Cilicia  ;  Perga,  of  Pamphylia  ; 
Antioch,  of  Pisidia  ;  Iconium,  in  Lycaonia,  of  which  province 
Lystra  and  Derbe  were  the  second  and  eighth  cities.      Without 
proceeding  further  in  tracing  the  journeyings  of  the  Apostles, 
let  us  turn  to  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  in  which  the  mode 
of  their  proceedings  is  incidentally  illustrated.     Ephesus  was 
the  great  city  of  Asia  Minor,  where  the  Asiarchs,  or  Chiefs 
of  Asia,*  resided.     Smyrna,  the  next  in  order,  is  ranked  in 
the  catalogues,  as  the  forty -third  city  of  the  Asian  province, 
but  was  of  great  importance,  for  its  maritime  position,  and 
its  commercial    opulence.     Pergamus  was  the  twenty-first 
city  of  the  same  province.     Thyatira   was  the  third  city  of 
Lydia,  as  Sardis  and  Philadelphia  were  the  first  and  second. 
Laodicea,  the  seventh,  was  the  Metropolis  of  Phrygia  Paca- 
tiana.     At  the  close  of  the  first  century,  therefore   when  St. 
John  wrote  the  Revelation,  these  seven  cities  had  Churches, 
to  the  Chief  Officers  of  which,  the  Epistles  were  addressed 
of  Him  who  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  Seven  Symbolic  Candle- 
sticks.    They   were  called  the  Angels  of  the  Churches ;  a 
name  signifying  a  messenger,  and  equivalent  to  that  of  Apos- 
tle.    The  term  Apostle  seems  to  have  been  early  confined  to 
those  who  first  went  forth  to  preach  the  Gospel ;  partly  from 
reverence,  but  chiefly,  to  distinguish  between  the  first  plant- 
ers of  the  Churches,  and  those  who  succeeded  them.     In  this 
sense  it  is  frequently  used  by  Eusebius,  to  denote  the  later 
Missionaries  of  the  Church,  by  whose  labours  it  was,  in  any 
specified  region,  first  founded.     For  a  similar  reason,  the Jlrst 
See  established  in  any  province  was  called  the  Apostolic  See  ; 
and  as  it  was  in  most,  if  not  in  all  cases,  established   in  the 
Metropolis,  the  Bishop  of  the  first  See  (primge  sedis  Episco- 
pus)  was  subsequently  called   the    Metropolitan.     But  the 
term  Bishop  of  the  first  or  Apostolic  See,  was  that  which,  for 
a  long  time,  was  the  only  title  of  precedence. 

When  each  Province  was  provided  with  a  sufficient 
number  of  Bishops  to  carry  on  the  work  of  spreading  the 
Gospel  within  its  bounds,  they  were  left  to  take  care  of  their 
own   afl?airs.     This  they  did  by  means  of  Synods  or  Coun 

*  Acts  xix.  31. 

n* 


238 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


cils;  which,  according  to  the  thirty-seventh  of  the  Apostolic 
Canons,  were  held  twice  a  year ;  first,  in  the  fourth  week 
after  Pentecost  or  Whit-Sunday,  and,  next,  in  the  month  of 
October.*  At  these  meetings,  Bishops  were  elected  and  con- 
secrated, and  all  other  matters  affecting  the  several  Churches 
in  the  Province  were  regulated.  The  Bishop  of  the  First 
See  presided  ;  and,  to  avoid  schism,  though  he  was  the  Con- 
secrator,  two  or  three  Bishops  must  be  present  and  assisting. 
If  any  Bishops  of  the  Province  were  absent,  they  sent  letters 
accounting  for  their  absence,  and  promising  their  assent  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  Synod. 

Such  seems  to  have  been  the  simple  and  primitive 
arrangement  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  position 
which  Christians  then  occupied  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
it  was  impossible  for  them  to  have  General  Councils, 
or  to  conduct  their  affairs  in  any  other  manner  than  that 
which  has  now  been  so  briefly  and  imperfectly  described. 
When  heresies  arose  to  disturb  these  Provincial  Churches, 
they  could,  by  their  synodical  decisions,  condemn  them  ;  and, 
in  doing  so,  they  generally  appealed,  if  any  doubt  occurred, 
to  the  nearest  See  founded  by  one  of  the  Apostles;  not  to 
the  See  of  Rome,  because  the  practice  of  calling  that  ex- 
clusively the  Apostolic  See,  is  of  much  later  origin.  The 
great  and  flourishing  Sees  founded  by  St.  Paul,  or  St.  Peter, 
or  St.  John,  or  by  other  of  the  Apostles,  would  certainly  have 
great  weight  in  determining  questions  either  of  doctrine  or 
discipline.  Accordingly  we  find,  in  the  early  Christian  writ- 
ers, as  we  have  fully  shown  in  the  first  part,!  a  summary 
mode  of  appeal  to  the  great  Provincial  Churches  founded  by 
Apostles.  **  If,"  says  Tertullian,  "  you  are  near  Achaia, 
you  have  Corinth  ;  if  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you  have 
Philippi;  if  you  can  go  into  Asia,  you  have  Ephesus  ;  if 
adjacent  to  Italy,  you  have  the  Church  of  Rome."  Why  ? 
Because  Corinth  was  the  metropolis  of  Achaia  ;  because 
Philippi,  though  not  the  metropolis,  for  that  was  Thessalonica, 
was  yet  the  second  city  of  Macedonia,  and  the  Church  there 

*  Bevereg.  Pandec.  Can.  torn.  i.  p.  25.  In  the  ancient  Roman  Col- 
lection it  is  enumerated  Canon  XXXVIII.  The  days  of  assembling 
were  Monday  in  the  fourth  week  after  Pentecost,  and  the  fourth  before 
the  Ides  or  eleventh  of  October.     Pithcei.  Cod.  Can  p.  13. 

t  Chap.  IV.  pp.  90-92,  and  103-105. 


OF    THE    ROMAN    SUPREMACY. 


239 


was  founded  by  the  Apostle  Paul ;  because  Ephesus  was  the 
chief  city  of  Asia,  and  the  residence  of  the  Apostle  John  ; 
because  Rome  was  the  chief  city  of  Italy  and  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  This  dream  of  St.  Peter's  supremacy  had  not  yet 
occupied  the  visions  of  the  night.  St.  Cyprian,  in  his  treatise 
on  Christian  Unity,  quotes  the  words  of  our  Saviour  to  St. 
Peter,  to  show  that,  "  notwithstanding  he  gave,  after  his  resur- 
rection, to  all  his  Apostles  an  equal  power,  yet  to  manifest 
unity,  he  so  arranged  its  beginning  as  to  make  it  proceed 
from  07ie."*  And  in  this  idea  he  followed  his  master  Ter- 
tullian, who  explained  our  Saviour's  words  as  conferring  a 
personal  honour  on  St.  Peter,  because  he  was  the  first  of  the 
Apostles  who  acknowledged  our  Lord  to  be  the  Christ. 
Without  favouring  his  Montanist  opinions,  well  might  I  apply 
Tertullian's  words  to  Dr.  Milner,  and  his  brethren  of  the 
Roman  Communion :  "  I  ask  now  concernirlg  this  your 
opinion.  Whence  do  you  usurp  this  right  for  the  Church? 
Because  the  Lord  said  to  Peter,  On  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
Church, — to  thee  have  1  given  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  ;  or  this.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  hind  or  loose  in  earth, 
shall  he  hound  or  loosed  in  heaven  ;  do  you  therefore  presume 
that  this  power  of  loosing  and  binding  has  descended  to  you, 
that  is,  to  every  church  related  to  Peter  ?  How  are  you 
overturning  and  changing  the  manifest  intention  of  our  Lord, 
conferring  this  personally  upon  Peter  ?  On  thee,  he  says, 
I  will  build  my  Church,  and  to  thee  will  I  give  the  keys, 
not  to  the  Church  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  or  bind, 
not  what  they  shall  loose  or  bind.  The  event  itself  teaches 
that  the  Church  was  built  upon  him,  that  is,  by  him,  •  •  •  • 
He  first  unlocked  the  entrance  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  in 
Christ's  baptism,  by  which,  sins,  before   bound,  are  loosed 

and  what  shall  not  be  loosed,  are  bound Ananias  he 

bound  with  the  chain  of  death  ;  and  the  man  impotent  in  his 

feet  he  loosed   from  his  infirmity. What  has  this  to  do 

with  the  Church,  or  with  thine,  thou  carnally-minded  ?"* 
This  rhetorical  application  of  St.  Peter's  personal  privilege 
as  a  type  of  unity,  will  make  every  first  See  in  every  Pro- 
vince where  the  Apostles  or  Apostolic  men  first  preached  the , 
Gospel,  a  See  of  St.  Peter. 

*  S.  Cypr.  Opera,  ed.  Massuet,  p.  194-195. 

t  TertuU.  de  Pudicitia,  cap.  xxi.  ed.  Seraler,  tom.iv.  pp.  432-433. 


240 


REPLY   TO    MILNER  S   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


The  accession  of  Constantino  to  the  Imperial  throne  ma- 
t3rially  changed  the  political  arrangement  of  the  Empire,  and 
led  to  changes  of  great  magnitude  in  the  Church.  Between 
the  time  of  Galba  and  that  of  Diocletian,  the  power  of  the 
Praetorian  Cohorts  had  first  been  elevated  to  a  military  des- 
potism, and  then,  from  the  time  of  Adrian,  checked  and  de- 
pressed. It  became  the  policy  of  the  Emperors  to  place  over 
them  tried  and  trusty  officers  under  the  name  of  Prsefecti- 
Praetorio,  with  ample  powers  to  restrain  their  turbulence. 
The  fidelity  of  these  officers  was  secured  by  giving  them 
rank  next  in  dignity  to  the  Emperor.  Constantino  carried 
this  system  to  its  utmost  perfection.  Instead  of  twOy  he  ap- 
pointed four  Prsefecti-Prsetorio,  to  whom  he  submitted  the 
administration  of  the  Provinces,  which  were  all  arranged  in 
Dioceses.  Forty-nine  Provinces  in  five  Dioceses  were  under 
the  Eastern  Prsefect ;  eleven  Provinces  in  two  Dioceses,  un- 
der the  Prajfect  of  Illyricum  ;  twenty-nine  Provinces  in 
three  Dioceses,  under  the  Prsefect  of  Italy ;  and  the  same 
number  of  each  under  the  Praefect  of  the  Gauls.  The 
Spanish,  the  Gallican,  and  the  British  Dioceses  were  subject 
to  the  latter.  Beside  these,  there  was  a  Praefect  of  the  city 
of  Rome,  whose  jurisdiction  extended  to  the  hundredth  mile- 
stone from  the  city  ;  and  this  territory  was  called  the  Suh- 
urlicarian  Region.  Such  was  the  arran<^ement  of  the 
Empire  about  ten  years  before  the  session  of  the  first  General 
Council  of  Nice. 

According  to  this  arrangement,  the  thirteen  great  dio- 
ceses of  the  Empire  were  governed  each  by  its  own  Vicarius, 
called  by  the  Greeks  Exarch,  and  by  the  Latins  Comes.* 
Subordinate  to  these  were  the  several  rulers  of  the  provinces, 
retaining  the  various  titles  which  were  established  in  the 
time  of  Augustus.  Each  province  was  again  subdivided 
into  cities,  having  jurisdiction  over  the  villages  within  its 
bounds.  Each  of  these  territories  was  called  amono^  the 
Greeks  naQoUia,  paroccia,  or  parochia.  But  the  reader  must 
be  careful  not  to  confound  the  parochia  of  the  Greeks  with 
the  modern  signification  of  the  word  parish ,  which  is  entirely 
of  Latin  origin.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  modern  sense 
•of  the  word  diocese,  which  corresponds   exactly  with    the 

•  This  word  is  ihe  origin  of  the  modern  word  Count. 


OF    THE    ROMAN    SUPREMACY. 


241 


Greek  paroecia,  and  meant,  as  first  used,  a  city  with  its 
suburban  villages.  These  few  particulars  are  sufficient  to 
illustrate  the  changes  which  took  place  in  Ecclesiastical 
arrangement. 

The  custom  had  arisen  in  Egypt  that  all  the  Bishops, 
in  its  several  provinces  should  be  consecrated  by  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria ;  and  to  him,  and  him  only,  had  the  title  of 
Archbishop  been  hitherto  given.  Certain  it  is,  as  Le  Quien 
and  others  admit,  that,  during  the  first  three  centuries,  the 
simple  name  of  Bishop,  without  any  additional  title  of  honour, 
was  given  to  the  greatest  and  most  eminent,  as  well  as  the 
least  and  most  obscure. 

A  violation  of  the  Egyptian  custom  having  occurred  in 
Upper-Egypt,  Alexandria  appealed  to  the  General  Council, 
now,  for  the  first  time,  convened  at  Nicaea,  the  metropolis  of 
Bithynia  Secunda.  The  Council,  while  it  confirmed  by  its 
fourth  canon,  the  ancient  and  general  practice,  decided  in 
favour  of  Alexandria,  solely  on  the  ground  of  established 
usage  in  Egypt,  and  because  a  similar  usage  had  existed  in 
Rome.  For,  in  its  sixth  canon,  it  says  :  "  Let  the  ancient 
customs  of  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Pentapolis  remain  in  force  ; 
so  that  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  may  have  authority  over 
them  all  ;  seeing  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  a  similar  cus- 
tom. In  like  manner,  also,  with  regard  to  Antioch,  and  in 
the  other  provinces,  let  their  privileges  (la  ngsa/SEla,  literally 
rights  of  primogeniture)  be  preserved  to  the  Churches.  And, 
in  general,  be  it  made  known,  that  if  any  one  be  made  a 
Bishop,  without  the  consent  of  the  Metropolitan,  the  great 
Council  decides,  that  he  ought  not  to  be  a  Bishop.  Never- 
theless, if  for  private  ends,  or  through  a  spirit  of  contention, 
two  or  three  oppose  the  common  suflrage  of  all,  the  same 
being  reasonable  and  canonical,  then  let  the  suffrage  of  the 
majority  prevail."* 

Here  is  the  first  Synodical  use  even  of  the  word  Metro- 
politan, for  the  Bishop  of  the  first  See  ;  and  while  it  forbids 
any  consecration  without  his  consent,  it  cautiously  guards 
against  any  opposition  of  his  for  private  ends,  by  establishing 
the  power  of  a  majority.  In  subjecting  the  nine  or  ten  , 
Metropolitans  of  Egypt  (for  there  were  at  least  a  hundred 


Beveregii  Pand.  Can.  tom.  i.  p.  66. 


242  REPLY    TO    MILNER's   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


Bishops  at  that  time),  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  they  put 
it  entirely  upon  the  ground  of  ancient  custom,  which  shows 
that  no  higher  authority  than  custom  could  be  pleaded  for  it ; 
and  the  very  obscurity  with  which  allusion  is  made  to  the 
usage  at  Rome,  and  to  the  privileges  of  Antioch  and  other 
provinces,  shows  the  extreme  caution  with  which  the  Nicene 
Fathers  were  disposed  to  treat  this  dangerous  subject.  The 
sixth  canon,  though  it  cannot,  by  any  fairness  of  interpreta- 
tion,  be  said  to  have  established  the  patriarchal  government 
of  the  Church,  certainly  prepared  the  way  for  it ;  and  was 
made  the  occasion  of  other  enactments,  in  subsequent  Coun- 
cils, of  a  more  decided  character. 

But  the  question  recurs.  What  did  the  Council  mean  by 
the  expression,  "  Seeing  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  a  simi- 
lar custom  ?"  Let  a  Latin  author  of  the  fourth  century  be 
heard  in  answer.  Dr.  Milner  quoted  Ruffinus  to  prove  that 
the  Apostles,  three  centuries  and  a  half  before  his  time,  com- 
posed the  Apostles'  Creed.*  I  shall  quote  him  for  the  con- 
struction put  upon  this  canon  in  Italy,  and  at  Rome  itself, 
not  more  than  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  its  enactment.  He 
states  the  purport  of  the  sixth  canon  thus  :  "  that  at  Alex- 
andria, and  in  the  city  of  Rome,  the  old  custom  be  observed, 
that  the  one  should  have  the  care  of  Egypt,  the  other  of  the 
Suburbicarian  Churches. ''-f  The  suburbicarian  churches 
were  in  the  suburbicarian  region,  which,  in  the  time  of 
Constantino,  was  governed  by  the  prijefect  of  the  city,  and 
extended  one  hundred  miles  around  Rome.  The  same  extent 
of  territory,  though  it  had  several  Bishops  in  it,  was,  by  a 
custom  now  confirmed,  under  the  care  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome. 

In  the  year  329  Constantino  transferred  the  seat  of  Em- 
pire from  Rome  to  Byzantium,  a  ruined  city  of  Thrace. 
It  was  an  inconsiderable  Bishopric,  in  the  province  of  which 
Heraclea  was  the  metropolis.  But  it  was  now  to  assume, 
under  the  name  of  Constantinople,  great  political  importance, 
being  called  New  Rome,  and  starting  at  once  into  a  splen- 
dour eclipsing  that  of  its  superannuated  rival.     Heraclea, 

*  See  Part  i.  c.  iv.  p.  77. 

t  "  VI.  Et  ut  apud  Alexandriam.et  in  urbe  Roma  vetusta  consuetudo 
servetur,  ut  vel  ille  iEgypti,  vel  hie  suburbicariarum  ecclesiarum  sollici- 
tudinem  gerat."     Ruffini  Hist.  Eccles.  Opera,  p.  199. 


' 


OF   THE    ROMAN   SUPREMACY. 


243 


however,  still  continued  to  hold  its  rank  as  the  Mother 
Church,  until  the  year  381,  in  which  the  second  General 
Council  was  assembled  at  Constantinople.  Hitherto  Alex- 
andria had  been  the  second,  and  Antioch  the  third  city  of 
the  Empire.  Now,  Constantinople  being  elevated  above 
them,  the  Council  decreed,  in  its  third  canon,  *'  that  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  shall  have  the  precedence  of  honour 
(la  ngfa^Bia  Tijg  Ji^rig)  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  because  that 
city  is  New  Rome.^^  The  precedence  of  honour  is  not  on 
account  of  the  dignity  of  the  Bishop,  but  the  dignity  and 
political  importance  of  the  See.  This  reason  is  still  more 
explicitly  and  amply  set  forth  in  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of 
the  fourth  General  Council,  held  in  a.  d.  451,  at  Chalcedon, 
the  second  city  in  the  province  of  Bithynia  Prima.  After 
quoting  the  third  canon  of  381,  it  proceeds  to  assign  the 
reasons  for  the  precedence  both  of  Old  and  New  Rome  : 
"  For  the  Fathers  (i.  e.  of  the  second  General  Council) 
justly  gave  privileges  (t«  nQscr/^ela)  to  the  See  of  Old  Rome, 
because  that  was  the  Imperial  City  ;  and  for  the  same  reason 
....  awarded  equal  privileges  to  the  most  holy  See  of  New 
Rome  ;  rightly  judging  that  a  city  honoured  with  Empire 
and  a  Senate,  and  enjoying  equal  privileges  with  Old  Impe- 
rial Rome,  should  also  be  as  exalted  as  that,  in  ecclesiastical 
nnatters,  ranking  next  to  it.''*  It  is  here  asserted  that  the 
Fathers  of  the  second  Council  gave  the  precedence  to  Old 
as  well  as  New  Rome;  and  both  for  the  same  political  rea- 
son, that  the  one  had  been,  and  the  other  was,  the  seat  of 
Empire  and  of  the  Senate.  If  they^ave  it,  Rome  had  it  not 
before  ;  and  if  they  gave  it,  because  Rome  was  the  Imperial 
city,  they  did  not  give  it  because  of  its  pretended  supremacy 
as  the  See  of  St.  Peter. 

In  the  year  449,  during  the  correspondence  which  pre- 
ceded the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  occurred  the  first  use,  in  an 
official  document,  of  the  title  of  Patriarch.  As  Metropolitan 
denoted  the  first  Bishop  of  each  province,  so  was  Patriarch 
used,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  to  denote 
the  first  Bishop  of  a  Diocese,  and  a  diocese  of  the  Empire, 
as  we  have  seen,  included  many  provinces.  This  ecclesias- 
tical title,  therefore,  coincided  in  dignity  with  the  Vicarius 

*  Bevereg.  Pand.  Can.  torn.  i.  p.  145. 


244 


REPLY    TO    MILNER  S    END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


or  Exarch  in  the  civil  arrangement  of  the  Empire.  This,  be 
it  observed,  was  a  usage  which  commenced  even  so  late  as 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  But  ambition,  when  once 
awakened,  makes  rapid  strides ;  and  it  comported  with  the 
policy  of  the  Emperors  to  excite  and  gratify  it.  In  the  No- 
vellas of  Justinian,  a.  d.  536,  Anthemius,  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople is  called  the  most  blessed  Archbishop  and  (Ecumeni- 
cal Patriarch  ;  that  is,  Patriarch  of  the  whole  Roman 
Empire  ;  for,  in  the  language  of  Roman  pride,  the  whole 
world  was  considered  as  under  their  dominion.  This  arro- 
gant title  thus  offered  by  the  Emperor,  was  soon  considered 
as  appertaining  of  right  to  the  See  of  New  Rome  ;  and  it 
alarmed  the  jealous  fears  of  the  Bishop  of  Old  Rome.  The 
well  known  letter  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  expostulating 
with  John,  surnamed  the  Faster,  will  place  the  whole  subject 
before  my  readers,  in  its  true  light.  I  regret  that  its  great 
length  forbids  me  to  give  it  entire.     It  begins  thus  : 

"  Gregory  to  Johrij  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 

"  At  the  time  in  which  you,  my  brother,  were  advanced 
to  the  honour  of  the  priesthood,  you  must  recollect  in  how 
great  peace  and  concord  you  found  the  Churcli.  But,  by 
what  daring  or  swelling  of  pride  I  know  not,  you  have  un- 
dertaken to  assume  a  new  name,  which  cannot  but  be  a  scan- 
dal to  the  hearts  of  all  your  brethren.  I  wonder  at  this  the 
more  earnestly,  when  I  remember  that  you  wished  to  flee, 
in  order  that  you  might  not  come  to  the  Episcopate.  Yet, 
having  obtained  it,  you  desire  so  to  exercise  it  as  if  you  had 
been  goaded  to  it  by  ambition.  For  how  did  you  confess 
yourself  unworthy  to  be  called  a  Bishop,  when  you  are 
brought  to  this  pass,  that  you  seek  to  despise  your  brethren 
and  be  called  the  only  Bishop  ?" 

Gregory  then  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  course  pursued 
by  his  predecessor  Pelagius,  in  sending  letters  of  remon- 
strance to  John,  and  refusing  communion  with  him  ;  — 
and  his  own  verbal  messages  and  threats  of  excommunica- 
tion on  his  accession  to  the  See  of  Rome.  From  threats 
he  proceeds  to  entreaties — begs  and  entreats  him  with 
tears,  that  he,  who  was  advanced  to  the  rank  of  the  Episco- 
pate, that  he  might  give  a  lesson  of  the  greater  humility, 
should  not  show  that  lie  did  not  teach  himself  a  truth,  which 


OF    the    ROMAN    SUPREMACY. 


245 


he  taught  to  others.  He  entreats  him  to  weigh  well  that  the 
peace  of  the  whole  Church  is  disturbed  by  his  rash  pre- 
sumption ;  and  that  he  himself  would  increase  in  grace,  if 
he  refrained  from  usurping  this  proud  and  foolish  appella- 
tion, and  did  not  thereby  seek  to  degrade  his  brethren.  He 
quotes  the  example  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  12,  13, 
and  the  description  of  Lucifer  in  Isa.  xiv.  13,  14.  On  the 
latter  passage  he  dwells  with  great  force;  and  then  appeals 
to  the  Apostles,  to  the  Saints  before  the  Law,  under  the  Law, 
and  under  Grace,  all  constituting  the  body  of  Christ,  as 
members  of  his  Church,  yet  no  one  ever  wishing  to  be  called 
universah  '*  Let  your  holiness,"  he  adds, ''  acknowledge  how 
great  is  that  arrogance  which  covets  to  be  called  by  a  name, 
which  no  one  ever  presumed  to  take,  who  was  truly  holy.^' 

He  then  appeals  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  in  conferring  honours  on  his  predecessors  the 
Bishops  of  the  Apostolic  See  ;  yet  none  of  them  were  wil- 
ling to  be  called  by  such  a  title,  or  ever  arrogated  to  himself 
so  rash  a  name.  If  he  had  assumed  the  glory  of  singularity 
in  the  grade  of  the  pontificate,  he  would  have  seen  that  all 
his  brethren  would  have  denied  it  to  him. 

After  attributing  the  conduct  of  John  to  the  influence  of 
flatterers  and  evil  counsellors,  he  proceeds  to  speak  of  the 
signs  of  the  times,  as  proving  the  near  approach  of  Anti- 
christ. "  Pestilence  and  the  sword  ras^e  throujjhout  the 
world.  Nations  rise  against  nations.  The  Globe  is  shaken, 
and  the  yawning  Earth,  with  its  inhabitants,  is  clean  dissolved. 
The  king  of  pride  is  near ;  and,  what  cannot  lawfully  be 
uttered,  an  army  of  Priests  is  prepared  for  him."  Then, 
after  appealing  to  the  humility  of  Christ,  and  his  constant  in- 
culcation of  humility  on  the  hearts  of  his  disciples,  he  sets 
before  John  the  terrors  of  final  retribution  :  *'  What,  then, 
dearest  brother,  wilt  thou  be  able  to  say  in  that  terrible  scru- 
tiny of  the  coming  judgment  ?  .  .  .  Behold  how  the  Church 
is  rent  by  this  nefarious  title  of  pride,  by  which  the  hearts 
of  all  your  brethren  are  scandalized.  Can  you  forget  what 
the  Truth  hath  said,  *  Whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little 
ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill- 
stone were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned 
in  the  depths  of  the  sea.'  "* 


*  S.  Greg.  Regist.  Epist.  lib.  v.  Indie,  xiii.  Epist.  18.     Opera,  torn, 
ii.  col.  742. 


246 


REPLY    TO   MILNER  S   END   OF   CONTROVERSY. 


This  memorable  letter  was  written  in  the  fifth  year  of 
St.  Gregory's  Episcopate,  a.  d.  595,  and  he  died  in  a.  d. 
604.  His  successor,  Boniface  III.,  who  had  been  sent  by 
Gregory  on  a  mission  to  the  Emperor  Phocas,  >\as  then 
raised  to  the  See  of  Rome.  Phocas  had  quarrelled  with 
Cyriacus,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  ;  and  Boniface,  during 
his  residence  at  Court,  as  Baronius  relates,  had  insinuated 
himself  into  the  friendship  of  the  Emperor.  When,  there- 
fore, Phocas,  according  to  custom,  wrote  to  him  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  elevation,  he  transferred  the  title  of  (Ecumenical 
or  Universal  Patriarch  from  Constantinople  to  Rome.  The 
authorities  to  which  Baronius  refers,  are  Paulus  Diaconus,  the 
historian  of  the  Lombards,  and  Anastasius,  the  author  of 
the  Liber  Pontificalis.  Both  these  writers  explicitly  declare, 
that  the  grant  was  made  at  the  solicitation  of  Boniface.  Ri- 
valry with  Constantinople,  and  a  quarrel  with  its  Patriarch, 
were,  therefore,  the  moving  causes  which  influenced  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  Emperor,  to  ^^ prepare'^  in  the  pro- 
phetic and  awful  warning  of  Gregory,  *'  an  army  of  Priests 
for  the  service  of  Antichrist  /" 

It  may  be  well  to  remark  here,  that,  in  a  letter  of  St. 
Gregory  to  Eulogius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  Anastasius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  he  fixes  the  precise  date  when  John  first 
assumed  the  title  of  Universal  Bishop.  It  was  written  in  the 
same  year,  and  doubtless  about  the  same  time,  in  which  he 
wrote  the  letter  of  remonstrance  from  which  I  have  so  largely 
quoted.  "  Eight  years  ago,"  he  says,  "  in  the  time  of  my 
predecessor  Pelagius  of  saintly  memory,  our  brother  and  fel- 
low Bishop  John  assembled  a  Synod  in  the  City  of  Constan- 
tinople, in  which,  he  attempted  to  call  himself  the  Universal 
Bishop.'"^  "  Eight  years  ago ;"  that  is,  a.  d.  587,  one  year 
after  John  himself  was  made  bishop. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  assume  the  office  of  interpreting  pro- 
phecy ;  yet  the  signs  of  the  times  now,  as  in  the  days  of 
Gregory,  must  lead  every  thoughtful  mind  to  view  passing 
events  in  their  connection  with  the  great  designs  of  Almighty 
Wisdom.  If  to  587,  we  add  the  great  prophetic  period  of 
1260  years,  it  brings  us  to  the  very  year  in  which  1  am 
writing,  a.  d.  1847.  Constantinople  has  long  since  been 
punished  for  her  usurpation.  What  will  be  the  fate  of 
Rome  under  Pius  ix.  ? 

*  S.  Greg.  Opera,  ut sup.  Epist.  43,  torn,  ii.col.  771. 


^^Moa^n 


OF   RELIGIOUS   PERSECUTION. 


247 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


OF    RELIGIOUS    PERSECUTION. 

L\  my  introduction  (p.  16)  I  promised  to  consider  Dr. 
Milner's  forty  .ninth  letter  on  the  subject  of  persecution.  To 
redeem  that  pledge,  I  shall  add  another  chapter  to  a  work, 
which  has  already  engrossed  too  much  of  my  time  and  la- 
bour. 

Persecution  within  the  Church  for  religious  opinions, 
derives  its  origin  from  the  period  of  the  Arian  Emperors ; 
and,  wherever  human  passions  have,  amid  contending  par- 
ties, been  excited  by  political  motives,  and  sustained  by  de- 
spotic power,  the  example  has  ever  since  been  too  fatally 
followed  ;  so  that  the  Church,  instead  of  resembling  the 
seamless  garment  of  Christ,  resembles  rather  the  many  col- 
oured coat  of  Joseph,  as  it  was  presented  to  the  eyes  of  Israel 
his  father,  torn  by  wild  beasts  and  dipped  in  blood.  Some 
knowledge,  therefore,  of  the  character  and  conduct  of  civil 
government,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  understand  the  causes 
and  motives  of  events  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  I  am 
indebted  for  the  substance  of  this  remark  to  the  historian 
Socrates,  who  says  that  he  "  always  made  mention  of  the 
Emperors,  because  that,  after  they  professed  the  Christian 
religion,  they  rendered  themselves  masters  of  ecclesiastical 
affairs."*  It  was  the  union  of  the  temporal  with  the  eccle- 
siastical power,  and  the  despotism  of  both,  which  brought  in 
civil  pains  and  penalties,  in  support  of  the  Church's  disci- 
pline. 

I  seek  not  to  raise  an  odium  against  the  members  of  the 
Roman  Communion,  by  relating  the  horrors  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  or  the  bloody  fires  of 
Smithfield;  but  I  cannot  refrain  from  indignation,  when  I 
see  such  a  perversion  of  the  truth,  as  this  letter  of  Dr.  Mil- 
ner  contains.  Strip  it  of  all  its  subterfuges,  I  cannot ;  for 
to  detect  every  misrepresentation,  would  require  a  volume. 
He  denies  the  charge  of  Bishop  Porteus,  that  "  the  Romish 

*  Socr.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  v.  ProcEmium. 


248  REPLY    TO    MILNEr's    END    OF    CONTROVERSy. 


Church  zealously  maintains  her  claim  of  punishing  heretics 
with  penalties,  imprisonment,  tortures  and  death  ;  and  asserts 
the  contrary,  **  that  she  disclaims  the  power  of  so  doing." 
How  does  he  prove  this  hardy  denial  and  assertion  ?  Why, 
by  quoting  Leo  the  Great,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Martin,  and,  long 
before  their  time,  Tertullian  !  The  Canon  law,  he  adds,  ex- 
cludes all  from  the  priesthood  who  have  "  actively  concurred 
in  the  death  or  mutilation  of  any  human  being."  Actively 
concurred  ! — I  asked  a  prelate  in  Rome,  who  was  a  judge  in 
a  Criminal  Court,  how  he  could  possibly  sit  on  trials  of  life 
and  death,  when  the  Canon  Law  so  strictly  forbade  it.  *'  So 
I  told  his  holiness,"  said  he  "when  he  appointed  me  ;  but  he 
answered,  Can  I  not  absolve  you?''  Such  was  the  ready 
answer  to  my  inquii'y.  In  Rome,  Canons  are  mere  paper 
barriers,  when  occasion  serves.  They  are  whited  sepulchres, 
which  hide  much  loathsome  corruption. 

Even  poor  John  Huss  was  not  burned  by  the  Council  of 
Constance  !  They  only  gave  him  over  to  the  secular  arm ! 
And  what  is  that?  The  third  Lateran  Council  (a.  d.  1179) 
decreed  that  "  although  Ecclesiastical  discipline,  as  the 
blessed  Leo  saith,  being  content  with  the  judgment  of  the 
priests,  does  not  take  sanguinary  revenge,  yet  is  it  assisted 
by  the  decrees  of  Catholic  Princes,  that  men  may  often  seek 
a  saving  remedy  through  fear  of  corporal  punishment.''  Was 
there  ever  a  tenderer  mercy  ? — So  in  the  third  Canon  of  the 
Fourth  Lateran  Council,  a.  d.  1215.  "  We  excommunicate 
and  anathematize  every  heresy  wliich  exalteth  itself  against 
this  holy  orthodox  and  Catholic  faith,  ....  condemning  all 
heretics,  by  whatsoever  name  they  may  be  reckoned ;  who 
have  indeed  diverse  faces,  but  their  tails  are  bound  together, 
for  they  make  agreement  in  the  same  folly.  Let  such  per- 
sons, when  condemned,  be  left  to  the  secular  powers, 
who  may  be  present,  or  to  their  officers,  to  be  punished  in  a 

FITTING  manner!" 

To  show  how  little  liberty  the  secular  powers  had  to  de- 
cline the  office  of  burning  and  torturing  heretics,  the  Canon 
adds :  "  And  let  the  secular  powers,  whatever  offices  they 
may  hold,  be  induced  and  admonished,  and  if  need  be,  com- 
pelled by  ecclesiastical  censure,  that,  as  they  desire  to  be 
accounted  faithful,  they  should,  for  the  defence  of  the  faith, 
publicly  set  forth  an  oath,  that,  to  the  utmost  of  their  power. 


OF  religious  persecution. 


249 


they  will  strive  to  exterminate,  from  the  lands  under  their 
jurisdiction,  all  heretics  who  shall  be  denounced  by  the  Church  ; 
.  .  .  But  if  any  temporal  Lord,  being  required  and  admon- 
ished by  the  Church,  shall  neglect  to  cleanse  his  country  of  this 
heretical  filth,  let  him  be  bound  with  the  chain  of  excommu- 
nication by  the  Metropolitan,  and  the  other  co-provincial 
bishops.  And,  if  he  shall  scorn  to  make  satisfaction  within 
a  year,  let  this  be  signified  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff ;  that 
thenceforth  he  xndiy  declare  his  vassals  to  be  absolved  from, 
their  fidelity  to  him,  and  may  expose  his  land  to  be  occupied 
by  the  Catholics,  who,  having  exterminated  the  heretics,  may 
without  contradiction,  possess  it,  and  preserve  it  in  purity  of 
faith.''"" 

To  proceed  now  to  what  Dr.  Milner  says  of  Queen  Eliz- 
abeth :  Let  any  ingenuous  lover  of  historic  truth  consider 
the  Bull  of  Pope  Pius  V.  in  1569,  and  then  let  him  say 
whether  that  resolute  princess  and  her  able  statesmen  were 
not  fully  justified.  The  Bull  in  the  original  Latin  may  be 
found  at  length  in  Burnet,  and  a  translation  of  it  in  Collier. f 
The  Pope,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  claimed  to  be  su- 
preme over  all  nations  and  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull 
down,  to  destroy,  to  build,  and  to  plant — prerogatives  belong- 
ing only  to  the  Almighty.ij:  He  called  Elizabeth  "  that 
vassal  of  Iniquity  the  pretended  Queen  of  England ;"  de- 
clared her  to  be  a  heretic,  and  an  encourager  of  heretics ; 
and  deprived  her  of  all  dominion,  dignity  and  privilege  ;  ab- 
solved her  subjects  from  all  fidelity  and  allegiance  ;  and  com- 
manded them  to  disobey  her,  under  penalty  of  excommuni- 
cation. Though  he  accuses  her  of  depriving  the  Bishops 
and  Clergy  who  were  submissive  to  him,  he  nowhere  charges 
her  with  bloodshed.  Nor  could  he  do  so,  with  the  least 
shadow  of  truth  ;  for  her  firm,  but  mild  and  tolerant  govern- 
ment, had  brought  upon  her  the  reproach  of  her  Puritan  sub- 
jects, that  she  had  an  inclination  to  Popery. 

Walsingham,  one  of  the  most  honest,  wise,  and  virtuous 
minister  of  that  or  any  other  age,  bears  this  testimony  to 
her  conduct  and  motives  :  "I  find  her  majesty's  proceeding 

*  Canons  of  Lateran,  III.  and  IV.  in  Perceval's  Roman  Schism,  pp. 
128- 135. 

t  Eccl.  Hist,  of  Great  Britain,  fol.  torn.  ii.  p.  521. 
t  Jerem.  xviii.  7,  9, 


250 


REPLY    TO    milker's   END    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


to  be  grounded  on  two  principles.  The  one  that  consciences 
are  not  to  he  forced  but  to  he  won,  and  induced  by  force  of  truth, 
with  the  aid  oftijne,  and  the  use  of  all  good  means  ofinstruc 
Hon  and  persuasion.  The  other,  that  causes  of  conscience, 
when  they  exceed  their  bounds  and  grow  to  be  matter  of 
faction,  lose  their  nature,  and  that  Sovereign  Princes  ought 
distinctly  to  punish  their  practices  and  contempt,  though 
coloured  with  the  pretence  of  conscience  and  religion.  Ac- 
cording to  these  principles  her  majesty,  at  her  coming  to  the 
crown,  disliking  the  tyranny  o^ Rome,  which  had  used  terror 
and  rigour  to  settle  commandments  of  men's  faiths  and 
consciences  ;  though  as  a  princess  of  great  wisdom  and  mag- 
nanimity, she  suffered  but  the  exercise  of  one  religion  ;  yet 
her  proceedings  towards  the  papists,  was  with  great  lenity  ; 
expecting  the  good  effects  which  time  might  work  in  them  ; 
and  therefore  her  majesty  revived  not  the  laws  made  in  the 
28th  and  35th  of  her  father's  reign,  whereby  the  oath  of  su- 
premacy might  have  been  offered  at  the  king's  pleasure  to 
any  subject,  so  he  kept  his  conscience  never  so  modestly  to 
himself,  and  the  refusal  to  take  the  same  oath,  without  fur- 
ther circumstances,  was  made  treason.  But  contrariwise,  her 
majesty  not  liking  to  make  windows  into  mens  hearts  and  se- 
cret thoughts,  except  the  abundance  of  them  did  overflow  into 
overt  and  express  acts,  or  affirmations,  tempered  her  law  so, 
as  it  restraineth  every  manifest  disobedience,  in  impugning 
and  impeaching  advisedly  and  maliciously  her  majesty* s  su- 
preme power,  maintaining  and  extolling  a  foreign  juetsdic- 
TiON ;  And  as  for  the  Oath,  it  was  altered  by  her  majesty 
into  a  more  grateful  form  ;  the  hardness  of  the  name  and  ap- 
pellation of  Supream  head,  was  removed  ;  and  the  penalty  of 
the  refusal  thereof,  turned  only  to  disablement  to  take  any 
promotion,  or  to  exercise  any  charge,  and  yet  of  liberty  to  be 
reinvested  therein,  if  any  man  should  accept  thereof  during 
his  life.  But  after,  when  Pius  Quintus  excommunicated  her 
Majesty,  &c."* 

Here  is  the  contemporary  testimony  of  one  who  knew 
well,  and  was  too  honest  to  deceive,  that  no  severity  was  prac- 
tised by  Queen  Elizabeth  till  the  excommunication  of  Pius 

*  See  the  whole  of  Sir  Francis  Walsingham's  Letter  to  M.  Critoy, 
in  Burnet,  Hist.  Reform,  part  ii.  book  iii.  near  the  end. 


OF   RELIGIOUS    PERSECUTION. 


251 


V.  had  rendered  it  necessary  for  her  to  protect  her  crown 
and  her  life.  Was  it  wonderful  that  she  hung  the  Jesuits, 
who,  like  birds  of  ill  omen,  flew  over  the  channel,  and  settled 
in  every  part  of  fair  and  peaceful  England,  to  sow  the  seeds 
of  rebellion,  and  light  up  the  flames  of  civil  war  ? — That 
bull  of  excommunication  has  never  been  repealed.  Will 
the  wisdom  of  Pius  the  Ninth  retract  the  nefarious  proceeding 
of  Pius  the  Fifth  ? 

The  Churches  of  the  English  Communion  do  not  defend 
the  death  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  or  of  Fisher  the  holy  Bishop 
of  Rochester,  or  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots.  Alas  !  much  of 
the  best  blood  of  England,  on  pretences  of  constructive  trea- 
son, has  flowed  upon  her  scaffolds.  But  every  instance  of 
cruelty  may  be  traced  to  the  enormities  sanctioned  by  Rome 
in  the  plenitude  of  her  power,  and  to  the  influence  of  opinions 
derived  from  the  mediaeval  ages.  In  the  ancient  Catholic 
Church,  persecution  was  utterly  unknown ;  and  I  therefore 
end  with  the  words  of  the  noble  Athanasius,*  "  If  it  be  inde- 
corous for  Bishops  to  change  their  sentiments  from  fear,  it  is 
much  more  indecorous  to  force  persons  who  are  unsettled  in 
their  faith,  or  are  unwilling  to  believe.  Thus  the  Devil,  as 
he  has  no  truth,  has  recourse  to  the  hatchet  and  the  cord,  and 
breaks  down  the  doors  of  those  who  receive  him.  The 
Saviour,  on  the  contrary,  is  so  mild  as  to  teach,  *  If  any  man 
WILL  come  after  me,'  and  '  Whosoever  will  be  my  disciple';' 
and,  when  He  cometh  to  any  one.  He  compelleth  not,  but 
rather  knocketh  and  saith,  *  Open  to  me,  my  sister,  my 
spouse.'  To  those  who  open.  He  enter eth  ;  from  those  who 
are  indifferent,  or  unwilling.  He  goeth  away.     The  truth  is 

TO  BE  PROCLAIMED,  NOT  WITH  SWORDS  AND  OTHER  WEAPONS 
OF  OFFENCE,  NOR  BY  MEANS  OF  SOLDIERS,  BUT  BY  PERSUA- 
SION AND  COUNSEL." 

*  Athan.  ad  Monachos.  Opera,  torn.  i.  p.  363,  ed.  Benedict. 


THE   END. 


> 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0032190034 


f'W^i  THlii 


'nw*'"' 


wm 


llDlllRlltiffl 


mm 


;■     E  il; 


||«^"?^ 


LmMi^i^^'^^i 


Jfti 


!;i!i' 


:•  !('  -J  fill    !•'-    :'■!  - 


LUHllUltlniMtiilllinUililililHHtlHiiinniMBHfllU^ 


:.i.,;-..iW^w 


V*      •a 


f'^TTT''; 


^WiT*W<M»?fHIRj3P«i«""' '  •'«»»| 


IM]MSslPI]iVllMiil2iisSt-i2!^.'^»^ 


